Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

[Tanasi]

I can't really think of a single thing liberals have done in the past several years that has alienated a large segment of the population.

Attempted banning of firearms???

Mandatory health care (Obamacare)???

[guywithashovel]

I remember seeing this story the other day when I was browsing through the Yahoo News. It was fun reading through the comment section on the article.

I don't doubt that some beliefs can be linked to low IQ or being poorly educated. You might be able to concoct a good argument for conservative beliefs being linked to low IQ. However, the definitions for "liberal" and "conservative" seem to be pretty open for interpretation. I've heard people call themselves conservative despite the fact that they are pro-choice, support LGBT issues, and think universal healthcare would be a good idea.

Even when they are clearly defined, it still gets shady. For example, most conservatives insist that they want "small government," and they want to accomplish this by eliminating most, if not all, publicly funded programs. Okay, maybe you're chopping down the government there, but they still want a bunch of laws preventing same-sex couples from marrying, preventing women from getting birth control and abortions, and telling people what religion they should follow. That's one powerful "small government" you're advocating there.

Well, some of them DON'T want those latter things, but those probably shouldn't be labeling themselves "conservatives."

[SkullKing]

(which for the record, scientifically speaking, not hot is more accurate than cold

How so?

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

[lordlundar]

How so?

Heat is energy, so what is defined as cold is a lack of energy, aka a lack of heat. So in terms of scientific accuracy, saying something lacks heat is more accurate than calling it cold, which implies something replaced the heat.

Attempted banning of firearms???

Mandatory health care (Obamacare)???

1. I keep hearing republicans scream this yet find no proof that Obama had any intention of banning firearms.

2. You mean that piece of trash that was modified from it's original design (which would have used Hawaii as a model with it's working public healthcare system) to appease the conservatives because Obama wanted to work with them instead of fighting them?

[smileyeagle1021]

Attempted banning of firearms???

Mandatory health care (Obamacare)???

1st, name a single house or senate bill to ban firearms. I'll settle for even one that would severely limit firearms (I wouldn't consider restricting one class of firearms to be a severe limitation on the ownership of firearms when all other classes of firearms have little to no restrictions on them... hell, even if the assault rifle ban had gone in effect, it would still be possible to buy rifles and in some places handguns, at WalMart... hardly a restriction on firearm ownership).

2nd, the original mandatory health care law was a mirror of the healthcare law in Massachusetts, a law signed by a republican governor and is a system that those under it have little to no problem with. It was because of Republican obstruction that we got the mess that we have now.

[HYHYBT]

Heat is energy, so what is defined as cold is a lack of energy, aka a lack of heat. So in terms of scientific accuracy, saying something lacks heat is more accurate than calling it cold, which implies something replaced the heat.

No, no, no. It implies no such thing except to people who wish to pretend it does so they can complain about others' using easy language instead of convoluted.

"Hot" and "cold" are relative terms for how much heat something has. Having a term for a lack of something does not, except by metaphor, mean a replacement. "Empty" is not less accurate than "absence of fullness." "Darker" is not less accurate than "less brightly lit." What you *measure* is the amount of heat or light or whatever, but that's not at all the same thing as saying the other terms are inaccurate.

[KabeRinnaul]

Just felt like sharing that The Straight Dope recently weighed in on the original topic of this thread. Link.

[Gravekeeper]

Just felt like sharing that The Straight Dope recently weighed in on the original topic of this thread. Link.

Not sure that really tackles it as this is not a matter of red state blue state and the definitions of liberal and conservative in the US are pretty skewed compared to the rest of the western world. US politics is extremely team oriented and there's no middle ground options. Even the moderates have to pick a team. Plus there's that pesky first across the line electoral system.

Additionally, there are clear differences in economic status, education and evangelical religion between red and blue states. I would once again venture that IQ is but one of a myriad of factors and that this is study is correlation but not exactly causation.

You can be of reasonable intelligence but still be an ignorant fuckwad. Ignorance is the biggest factor in prejudice and bigotry. While ignorance may go hand and hand with low IQs, there are many other factors that would lead to ignorance besides just IQ.

I would say the biggest issue, at least within the US, is that American conservative ideology is confrontational and has, especially in recent years, fostered an Us vs Them mentality: You do not talk to the enemy. You do not learn about the enemy. You rely on your own ignorant ideas of who and what the enemy is. To accept them and listen to them is percieved weakness and you will be cast out of the tribe.