Conservative Politics, 'Low-Effort' Thinking Linked In New Study

[JimR-OCDS]

Conservatives and liberals don't seem to agree about much, and they might not agree about recent studies linking conservatism to low intelligence and "low-effort" thinking.


As The Huffington Post reported in February, a study published in the journal "Psychological Science" showed that children who score low on intelligence tests gravitate toward socially conservative political views in adulthood--perhaps because conservative ideologies stress "structure and order" that make it easier to understand a complicated world.


Ouch.



And now there's the new study linking conservative ideologies to "low-effort" thinking.
"People endorse conservative ideology more when they have to give a first or fast response," the study's lead author, University of Arkansas psychologist Dr. Scott Eidelman, said in a written statement released by the university.


Conservative Politics, 'Low-Effort' Thinking Linked In New Study

The article links to the study itself.

Jim

 

[Fantine]

I agree with that article for the most part.

But I think that for thoughtful "orthodox" conservatives, it takes as much "effort" to turn those critical thinking skills off as it does to keep them on.

 

[Vendetta]

In a world of black and white, stuff becomes awfully simple, and critical thought isn't really necessary. I think it's more true of Neo-Cons than Paleo-Cons, but it makes sense to me. The bright side, of course, is that some of the most intelligent people ever were in the Church, and intelligence isn't necessary for salvation. When paired with a big ego, intelligence works against it, actually.

 

[Vasallus]

So conservatives are stupid. That's a good way to promote compromise.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So conservatives are stupid. That's a good way to promote compromise.

This statement merely supports the findings in the report.

Jim

 

[AMDG]

So conservatives are stupid. That's a good way to promote compromise.

No. The conservatives are realists. They aren't idealists. They don't waste time with abstract and fanciful thinking when plain common sense works just as well. They don't "tie themselves up in knots" trying to be sophists.

It's all how you interpret the studies, don't ya know?

Now IMO *this* isn't a very good way to promote compromise or encourage the people toward unity.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weiss/2012/01/22/yes-liberalism-mental-disorder

 

[Fantine]

Most of us never use more than 10% of our brains.

The study doesn't tell us why conservatives seem to ignore those higher level thinking skills--they just do (according to the study).

But I think it takes a lot of effort and mental focus to deliberately shut down your critical thinking skills for the sake of "obedience." I know that the people who expend all that effort think they are doing the right thing, and even though I don't understand them, I know they are doing it because they think it's right.

 

[Vendetta]

Most of us never use more than 10% of our brains

Urban legend.

snopes.com: Ten Percent of our Brains

 

[Fantine]

Just pointing out, AMDG, that Jim's article was based on a scientific study and published in a scientific journal.

The article you shared was an opinion piece.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Just pointing out, AMDG, that Jim's article was based on a scientific study and published in a scientific journal.

The article you shared was an opinion piece.

Hence, giving more support for the findings in the article.


Jim

 

[AMDG]

Just pointing out, AMDG, that Jim's article was based on a scientific study and published in a scientific journal.

The article you shared was an opinion piece.

It was by a psychoanalyst, a book was also published by someone else. And both articles probably used the same scientific study. And I *still* say that it wasn't the best way to encourage unification of the country.

And I still say that Jim's article *can* be explained to mean that for some reason Dems are sophists and live in fantasy while conservatives are down-to-earth and use common sense. Takes less "brain power" to be direct. It's all how the study is explained.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Perhaps, Neocons do not utilise their reasoning skills as they ought to do so? Likewise, I know quite a few liberals that support, as in a 'knee-jerk' fashion, the Progressivist agendas promoted in the US. I do not think true 'conservatives', who might be termed, 'Paleoconservatives' are dull of wit; rather, it would seem the opposite. Most 'paleocons' are erudite, articulate, well-reasoned, and strive towards clarity of speech. The broad generalisation that the article perpetuates does a disservice to Liberals. It reflects that they are just as 'hard-minded' or recalictrant as many of the so-called 'conservatives (read: 'Neoconservatives') that they would be wont to criticise.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Scientific studies are often biased; being that the politics of the group tend to skew the data. That being said, IQ is an indicator on one's ability to learn, not necessarily a measure of success. I am sure we can all make a list of Brilliant people who are made up of liberals and conservatives.

I could for example mention Milton Friedman the economist who was the former leader of the Chicago School of Economics. Friedman was an Arch-Conservative who headed up the Reagan economic team. Here are a few of his accomplishments.

Friedman's challenges to what he later called "naive Keynesian" (as opposed to New Keynesian) theory[4] began with his 1950s reinterpretation of the consumption function, and he became the main advocate opposing activist Keynesian government policies.[5] In the late 1960s he described his own approach (along with all of mainstream economics) as using "Keynesian language and apparatus" yet rejecting its "initial" conclusions.[6] During the 1960s he promoted an alternative macroeconomic policy known as "monetarism". He theorized there existed a "natural" rate of unemployment, and argued that governments could increase employment above this rate (e.g., by increasing aggregate demand) only at the risk of causing inflation to accelerate.[7] He argued that the Phillips curve was not stable and predicted what would come to be known as stagflation.[8] Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady, small expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy.[9]

I am a mixture of Conservative and Liberal, depending upon the issue. I won't brag publicly that my IQ is higher than 85% of the population. *Brag* *Brag*

I am sure if I had the time and/or inclination, I could investigate the organization and group that sponsored the study and there would be a direct correlation bewteen their politics and the outcomes.

 

[AMDG]

Then there's this from the Pew Report and is otherwise entitled "Republicans are Smarther than Democrats" ( http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2012/04/23/new-survey-republicans-smarter-than-democrats/?subscriber=1 ):

What the Public Knows about the Political Parties | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

It seems these things do absolutely nothing to show that we are all in this together. Rather self-serving for the individual party, I would say. And it doesn't show that people are individuals that may not be alligned with *either* party (like a number of us are).

And I *still* say it's all about how one interprets the survey and reports on it.

 

[Fantine]

Thinking skills are different from intelligence. Thinking skills are what we use when we apply our intelligence to a challenge, a problem, a decision.

Bright people can make impulsive decisions because they didn't think. People who are not as bright but who take the time to learn and analyze might make better decisions.

I don't know who mentioned the "Deer Hunting With Jesus" book a week or so ago (the title fascinated me and I ordered it) but I think it is illustrative of the "low thinking skill" conservatives found in the survey.

I would deer hunt with Jesus if it was a photo shoot.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Thinking skills are different from intelligence. Thinking skills are what we use when we apply our intelligence to a challenge, a problem, a decision.

Bright people can make impulsive decisions because they didn't think. People who are not as bright but who take the time to learn and analyze might make better decisions.

I don't know who mentioned the "Deer Hunting With Jesus" book a week or so ago (the title fascinated me and I ordered it) but I think it is illustrative of the "low thinking skill" conservatives found in the survey.

I would deer hunt with Jesus if it was a photo shoot.

Fantine, you forgot your Pom Pom's. I believe a higher measure of IQ would be those who have nuanced opinions and beliefs. I can 100 % predict your position any any given issue.