Society/Culture Why do less intelligent people gravitate to conservative/right wing ideology.

[Mofra]

The Daily Mail article reports upon a study by Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario, Canada. (another Canadian Academic Psychologist but without a youtube presence). He looked at data from 2 UK studies testing child development. The subjects were
(a) 4,267 boys and 4,537 girls born in 1958;
(b) 3,412 boys and 3,658 girls born in 1970.

The tests were of
(c) verbal and non verbal intelligence; and
(d) cognitive abilities (number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words).

In both surveys, 23 years later, the same groups were asked to answer a series of questions about traditions, authority and attitudes toward other races. Hodson then postulated a definition of conservatism which is undefined but looks to be based upon attitudes towards Authority and other races and concluded that low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservtive ideologies.

I’d very cautious about accepting the conclusions drawn by Grin and his gaggle of applauders from the article helpfully posted by Mofra

So would I.

Here's a meta-analysis that's far more wide ranging.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55893129.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiZksKNiq38AhWmwjgGHVyFAdQQFnoECC0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2xHhvNmp4MW8yHxMsywA_c

There is a significant body of work on the subject. Assuming the entire concept is based off a single study is folly.

 

[Galaxie77]

The people in the south obviously don't hold out much hope of that, they didn't even bother voting.

They did, for the party that bought them with the most pensions... the DC, backed by America in times past.

 

[Gethelred]

Good, finally Italy has woken up, can stop the illegals like the other euro nations do.
Greece and Malta.... why should Italy have to take them all?

Hopefully they will clean up the south.... mega job there

That's certainly an opinion, if a gross one.

 

[rank and file]

Hungary, Sweden, Italy, Poland and the bois all going full "less intelligent". Or perhaps allowing a million+ refugees in during the peak of the Syria conflict could've had consequences? Thankfully the POTUS before Biden kept his election promise and largely squashed that conflict in his first 6 months!

Nothing to do with Trump.
Europe has always been a hot-bed of ultra-nationalism.
Could be time to look at the Swedish style and start a Nuance Party.

 

[btdg]

One thing I'll suggest is important here is that conservatives and right wingers very openly and proudly target and speak to less intelligent people.

Some of it is simply corporate marketing - there's a lot of less informed, less intelligent people out there, and they're often easily influenced and swayed on politics (but also on other things), not because they are stupid (the intelligent are just as gullible in my experience) but because a lot of things are 'new' to them (they don't know much about Ukraine, or about buying Timeshare, or whatever you are selling them). So yeah, the Herald Sun uses a lot of pictures and sensationalised headlines and simplifies everything down to 'these guys good/those guys bad' and you know what, it works. Not everyone has the literacy skills, or the time, or the desire, to go deeply into the philosophy of politics, and that's totally fine. Some people are busy focusing on the day-to-day - because they prefer to live in the moment, or because frankly they don't have time to get out of it. There's ripe ground there for anyoen who wants to distill important messages and make it quick and easy for those people...

Right Wingers and Conservatives have made an art form out of this: reducing their arguments back to 'common sense', appealing to the lowest common denominator, etc. And think about that phrasing: the lowest common denominator = a level playing field, something that can be shared by all (somehow it has been turned into a slur). Simple language, emotive arguments, relating things back to what people already know and feel comfortable with... the 'right' are very good at this.

Lefties, on the other hand (and I am definitely a lefty myself) are plagued by problems in communicating with the 'less intelligent.' Firstly, there's way too much focus on nuance and being 'most correct' rather than finding common ground. See: Trans activists and Womens rights activists ripping each other apart (JK Rowling anyone) rather than finding the middle ground to support each other, and you can say the same about environmentalists (nuclear vs renewables? who bloody cares) or almost any 'lefty' field. In contrast, the contemporary 'right' seems dominated by an alliance of corporate raiders and evangelical Christians - if they can make it work, anyone can. This isn't a new problem: go back and look at what the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks split over and try to actually understand the differences as grounded in the real world at the time. But in the 21st century the average Joe out there doesn't care about the nuances - that's why we have representative democracy. Average Joe wants the 'vibe' to be right, and the left should be good guys here, but often aren't.

Secondly, lefties can be a bit verbose (yes, this post is ironically long) and focus a bit too much on logic rather than emotion. You can lay out all the carefully crafted arguments you want for why Universal basic income is a good idea (and the economics supports it...) but unless you get past the emotional block of 'people getting something for nothing' you get no-where. So take a good idea like that and make it familiar and comfortable, emotive: UBI is actually about the Fair Go, it's about giving battlers a leg up, it's about supporting your mum in her old age... whatever it takes...

Finally... I just honestly think lefties have a blind spot when it comes to doing the work of winning hearts and minds. It's hard to 'flip' people and most don't have the moxie to get out there and do it. I'm part of this myself - I've got a job, family, hobbiess... how much time do I have to win people over to the cause? It's frustrating that people around me don't see the obvious: on climate change, on econmoic and social policy. Must be because they are stupid, right? People don't like 'wokeness' or immigration? It's because they're bigoted, right? Nope, they just need time to wrap their heads around it: but flipping people is tough work, and if you don't do it, it gets harder by the day.

There's a movement in America at the moment which is basically around 'Trump Communism' that has spurred a lot of thinking for me- it's radical lefties who are trying to change this, going out and trying to talk to Trump supporters, listen, engage, etc. There's clearly a desire in politics for something 'different' and the choice is either get into the trenches and present your case, or let whoever is willing to do so win teh hearts and minds instead. Trump pandered incessantly to his base and offered little of substance other than 'owning the libs'. Imagine what could be done by someone powerful pandering to the base AND delivering noticeable improvements to their lives.

Anyway, that's my take. If the less intelligent gravitate 'right' that's an indictment on the left and its ability to sell its message to the people it is supposedly aiming to support most...

 

[Gethelred]

One thing I'll suggest is important here is that conservatives and right wingers very openly and proudly target and speak to less intelligent people.

Some of it is simply corporate marketing - there's a lot of less informed, less intelligent people out there, and they're often easily influenced and swayed on politics (but also on other things), not because they are stupid (the intelligent are just as gullible in my experience) but because a lot of things are 'new' to them (they don't know much about Ukraine, or about buying Timeshare, or whatever you are selling them). So yeah, the Herald Sun uses a lot of pictures and sensationalised headlines and simplifies everything down to 'these guys good/those guys bad' and you know what, it works. Not everyone has the literacy skills, or the time, or the desire, to go deeply into the philosophy of politics, and that's totally fine. Some people are busy focusing on the day-to-day - because they prefer to live in the moment, or because frankly they don't have time to get out of it. There's ripe ground there for anyoen who wants to distill important messages and make it quick and easy for those people...

Right Wingers and Conservatives have made an art form out of this: reducing their arguments back to 'common sense', appealing to the lowest common denominator, etc. And think about that phrasing: the lowest common denominator = a level playing field, something that can be shared by all (somehow it has been turned into a slur). Simple language, emotive arguments, relating things back to what people already know and feel comfortable with... the 'right' are very good at this.

Lefties, on the other hand (and I am definitely a lefty myself) are plagued by problems in communicating with the 'less intelligent.' Firstly, there's way too much focus on nuance and being 'most correct' rather than finding common ground. See: Trans activists and Womens rights activists ripping each other apart (JK Rowling anyone) rather than finding the middle ground to support each other, and you can say the same about environmentalists (nuclear vs renewables? who bloody cares) or almost any 'lefty' field. In contrast, the contemporary 'right' seems dominated by an alliance of corporate raiders and evangelical Christians - if they can make it work, anyone can. This isn't a new problem: go back and look at what the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks split over and try to actually understand the differences as grounded in the real world at the time. But in the 21st century the average Joe out there doesn't care about the nuances - that's why we have representative democracy. Average Joe wants the 'vibe' to be right, and the left should be good guys here, but often aren't.

Secondly, lefties can be a bit verbose (yes, this post is ironically long) and focus a bit too much on logic rather than emotion. You can lay out all the carefully crafted arguments you want for why Universal basic income is a good idea (and the economics supports it...) but unless you get past the emotional block of 'people getting something for nothing' you get no-where. So take a good idea like that and make it familiar and comfortable, emotive: UBI is actually about the Fair Go, it's about giving battlers a leg up, it's about supporting your mum in her old age... whatever it takes...

Finally... I just honestly think lefties have a blind spot when it comes to doing the work of winning hearts and minds. It's hard to 'flip' people and most don't have the moxie to get out there and do it. I'm part of this myself - I've got a job, family, hobbiess... how much time do I have to win people over to the cause? It's frustrating that people around me don't see the obvious: on climate change, on econmoic and social policy. Must be because they are stupid, right? People don't like 'wokeness' or immigration? It's because they're bigoted, right? Nope, they just need time to wrap their heads around it: but flipping people is tough work, and if you don't do it, it gets harder by the day.

There's a movement in America at the moment which is basically around 'Trump Communism' that has spurred a lot of thinking for me- it's radical lefties who are trying to change this, going out and trying to talk to Trump supporters, listen, engage, etc. There's clearly a desire in politics for something 'different' and the choice is either get into the trenches and present your case, or let whoever is willing to do so win teh hearts and minds instead. Trump pandered incessantly to his base and offered little of substance other than 'owning the libs'. Imagine what could be done by someone powerful pandering to the base AND delivering noticeable improvements to their lives.

Anyway, that's my take. If the less intelligent gravitate 'right' that's an indictment on the left and its ability to sell its message to the people it is supposedly aiming to support most...

Do you think you could be feeding into a number of different right wing narratives designed to split the left via progressive/conservative talking points as well as blaming them for the concerted effort over the last 50 years within the right to seize the narrative via media ownership?

It's all very well and good to say that the right are better at selling their 'message' and that the left need to compensate, but the right are also willing to outright lie to win and have worked to ensure their voice is always the loudest.

 

[Cyg1992]

Nothing to do with Trump.
Europe has always been a hot-bed of ultra-nationalism.
Could be time to look at the Swedish style and start a Nuance Party.

These are people who haven't seen much of the world nor read a lot of history.

They think that backwards right wing and conservative values were invented by trump and fox news.

Steven crowder even made a video about a 'red wave' sweeping over Europe, after the Italian election.
Completely oblivious to what a red wave in Europe actually means

 

[cartwright]

Hehe

 

[Richard Pryor]

On gravitation to conservatism, one aspect of this I was thinking on recently was the 'meme' iconoclastic culture shifting towards conservatism. On this, I think one facet of youth is rebelling against 'piety' and mocking sacred cows in order to establish ones agency and just to see if one can. This has historically manifested as rebellion against religious norms (i.e. the most low hanging fruit of comedy is simply saying sexually explicit things and curse words, since this is at odds with general Christian values which have historically represented the 'norm' people are pious about).

Many people have become pious about left wing principles, and certainly this is not inherently a bad thing, but I think this has caused young people to find validation in rebelling against this and joking about being right wing things. The majority of support for Trump on the internet I saw was purely based around him "triggering the libs" and I think mostly titillation at him saying things which are so against left wing 'piety' in such a blunt way that it felt anarchic and rock and roll (even though he is a millionaire descended from a millionaire and about as far from a genuine outsider to the establishment as you can get on paper). This youthful streak of rebellion can lead to ostracization, and leave people ripe for the picking for radicalization by extremists like white supremacy groups.

This I think is an established pattern in internet culture these days, and on its pure mechanics I think has parallels to the surge of atheism in the early 2000's. I consider myself an atheist, but I think many do not have a well thought out understanding and rejection of theology as the basis for their atheism, for many it was the thrill of being swept up in the mockery of sacred cows by eloquent thinkers like Dawkins and Hitchens. Similarly Trump mocking sacred cows swept up many attracted by the thrill of going against the grain. This highlights the danger of dogmatism and simply adopting views based on charisma and immediate emotional validation, as opposed to reason and discussion.

 

[Hudson31]

Nothing to do with Trump.
Europe has always been a hot-bed of ultra-nationalism.
Could be time to look at the Swedish style and start a Nuance Party.

places like Asia, South america the middle east isn’t?
its fsar easier to migrate to europe than any of those countries

 

[Hudson31]

Do you think you could be feeding into a number of different right wing narratives designed to split the left via progressive/conservative talking points as well as blaming them for the concerted effort over the last 50 years within the right to seize the narrative via media ownership?

It's all very well and good to say that the right are better at selling their 'message' and that the left need to compensate, but the right are also willing to outright lie to win and have worked to ensure their voice is always the loudest.

dude that is one of the funniest statement ive ever head! as it shows a clear understanding of nothing.
if you swaped left with right youd be some what spot on!

nearly all the media is left wing eg with a few netsorks like fox as an example also! in saying that Murdoch is a facinationg character once you go beyond the crap that his network peddles

 

[the_interloper]

dude that is one of the funniest statement ive ever head! as it shows a clear understanding of nothing.
if you swaped left with right youd be some what spot on!

nearly all the media is left wing eg with a few netsorks like fox as an example also! in saying that Murdoch is a facinationg character once you go beyond the crap that his network peddles

I welcome you to this thread and think you'll be a great contributor!

 

[Jcpdragonx]

Anyway, that's my take. If the less intelligent gravitate 'right' that's an indictment on the left and its ability to sell its message to the people it is supposedly aiming to support most...

In terms of communicating/selling its message, the left on this board frequently conduct themselves it in a passive aggressive manner, where they go into a purity spiral against anyone with who has a view which is .01mm to the right, claim victory in their own head and then get the dopamine hit from the ego boost. An interesting approach.

 

[Lethality]

The internet has been a huge disappointment. It could have made us all smarter, instead it has given an equal platform to nonsense.

There are some very useful apps out there which together could really help to improve global IQ and wellbeing but most of this stuff is pay walled now.

Idk if there is incentive or capacity for the app companies to make their products free again [with advertising perhaps]

Or government could perhaps fund free apps for the greater good. A free alternative to Noom weight loss for example could help with obesity, which in turn increases cognitive ability.

 

[DaRick]

One thing I'll suggest is important here is that conservatives and right wingers very openly and proudly target and speak to less intelligent people.

Some of it is simply corporate marketing - there's a lot of less informed, less intelligent people out there, and they're often easily influenced and swayed on politics (but also on other things), not because they are stupid (the intelligent are just as gullible in my experience) but because a lot of things are 'new' to them (they don't know much about Ukraine, or about buying Timeshare, or whatever you are selling them). So yeah, the Herald Sun uses a lot of pictures and sensationalised headlines and simplifies everything down to 'these guys good/those guys bad' and you know what, it works. Not everyone has the literacy skills, or the time, or the desire, to go deeply into the philosophy of politics, and that's totally fine. Some people are busy focusing on the day-to-day - because they prefer to live in the moment, or because frankly they don't have time to get out of it. There's ripe ground there for anyoen who wants to distill important messages and make it quick and easy for those people...

Right Wingers and Conservatives have made an art form out of this: reducing their arguments back to 'common sense', appealing to the lowest common denominator, etc. And think about that phrasing: the lowest common denominator = a level playing field, something that can be shared by all (somehow it has been turned into a slur). Simple language, emotive arguments, relating things back to what people already know and feel comfortable with... the 'right' are very good at this.

Lefties, on the other hand (and I am definitely a lefty myself) are plagued by problems in communicating with the 'less intelligent.' Firstly, there's way too much focus on nuance and being 'most correct' rather than finding common ground. See: Trans activists and Womens rights activists ripping each other apart (JK Rowling anyone) rather than finding the middle ground to support each other, and you can say the same about environmentalists (nuclear vs renewables? who bloody cares) or almost any 'lefty' field. In contrast, the contemporary 'right' seems dominated by an alliance of corporate raiders and evangelical Christians - if they can make it work, anyone can. This isn't a new problem: go back and look at what the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks split over and try to actually understand the differences as grounded in the real world at the time. But in the 21st century the average Joe out there doesn't care about the nuances - that's why we have representative democracy. Average Joe wants the 'vibe' to be right, and the left should be good guys here, but often aren't.

Secondly, lefties can be a bit verbose (yes, this post is ironically long) and focus a bit too much on logic rather than emotion. You can lay out all the carefully crafted arguments you want for why Universal basic income is a good idea (and the economics supports it...) but unless you get past the emotional block of 'people getting something for nothing' you get no-where. So take a good idea like that and make it familiar and comfortable, emotive: UBI is actually about the Fair Go, it's about giving battlers a leg up, it's about supporting your mum in her old age... whatever it takes...

Finally... I just honestly think lefties have a blind spot when it comes to doing the work of winning hearts and minds. It's hard to 'flip' people and most don't have the moxie to get out there and do it. I'm part of this myself - I've got a job, family, hobbiess... how much time do I have to win people over to the cause? It's frustrating that people around me don't see the obvious: on climate change, on econmoic and social policy. Must be because they are stupid, right? People don't like 'wokeness' or immigration? It's because they're bigoted, right? Nope, they just need time to wrap their heads around it: but flipping people is tough work, and if you don't do it, it gets harder by the day.

There's a movement in America at the moment which is basically around 'Trump Communism' that has spurred a lot of thinking for me- it's radical lefties who are trying to change this, going out and trying to talk to Trump supporters, listen, engage, etc. There's clearly a desire in politics for something 'different' and the choice is either get into the trenches and present your case, or let whoever is willing to do so win teh hearts and minds instead. Trump pandered incessantly to his base and offered little of substance other than 'owning the libs'. Imagine what could be done by someone powerful pandering to the base AND delivering noticeable improvements to their lives.

Anyway, that's my take. If the less intelligent gravitate 'right' that's an indictment on the left and its ability to sell its message to the people it is supposedly aiming to support most...

IOW, right-wing politicians are better at sloganeering that hits you in the gut.

 

[Hudson31]

The internet has been a huge disappointment. It could have made us all smarter, instead it has given an equal platform to nonsense.

There are some very useful apps out there which together could really help to improve global IQ and wellbeing but most of this stuff is pay walled now.

Idk if there is incentive or capacity for the app companies to make their products free again [with advertising perhaps]

Or government could perhaps fund free apps for the greater good. A free alternative to Noom weight loss for example could help with obesity, which in turn increases cognitive ability.

you ever feel that society has been dumbed down for a reason and leftism has grown in popularity for a reason?

 

[Richard Pryor]

The internet has been a huge disappointment. It could have made us all smarter, instead it has given an equal platform to nonsense.

There are some very useful apps out there which together could really help to improve global IQ and wellbeing but most of this stuff is pay walled now.

Idk if there is incentive or capacity for the app companies to make their products free again [with advertising perhaps]

Or government could perhaps fund free apps for the greater good. A free alternative to Noom weight loss for example could help with obesity, which in turn increases cognitive ability.

Played out thing to say online, but is very true. We all feared the dystopia of Orwell's 1984, and never noticed the real threat was the dystopia of Aldous Huxleys Brave New World.

 

[David Schwarz]

The internet has been a huge disappointment. It could have made us all smarter, instead it has given an equal platform to nonsense.

There are some very useful apps out there which together could really help to improve global IQ and wellbeing but most of this stuff is pay walled now.

Idk if there is incentive or capacity for the app companies to make their products free again [with advertising perhaps]

Or government could perhaps fund free apps for the greater good. A free alternative to Noom weight loss for example could help with obesity, which in turn increases cognitive ability.

Ironically the first form of the internet - the forum, not unlike this - is the proper “peoples town square”. I’ve been a mod and a shitposter, sometimes (read: all the time) simulataneously, and I never ever remember anyone lecturing me about free speech.

Given the Melon Usk situation, I’ve almost come to appreciate echo chambers, because in small groups, unlike your own or my own group of friends, you moderate yourself. In an unfiltered world forum that’s impossible

IOW, right-wing politicians are better at sloganeering that hits you in the gut.

As someone who leans heavily to the left, left wing parties have never been able to capture the online zeitgeist. Right wing parties put out press releases every hour, they feed a starved journalism audience that is forced to work without the 5-10 staffers they used to have 20 years ago to look out for news

you ever feel that society has been dumbed down for a reason and leftism has grown in popularity for a reason?

Society is dumbed down beyond belief, the result is extremes - not one side to the other. The political spectrum might as well be a proper circle right now as opposed to it’s traditional x/y axis

 

[bzparkes]

In regards to the OP:

In the past, lefties were generally higher educated and had a broader world-view. They travelled more and undertook higher education more readily, thus they were more open to having their beliefs challenged. This lead to greater self reflection and desire to learn/grow, thus lending this side of the political compass to those with a higher education/IQ. It helps that the left were also mostly from a more privileged socio-economic demographic than the right.

Right wing people tended to have their ideas locked in stone and hate having their world-view challenged, thus lending itself to be far more popular to people less mentally endowed, with its simplistic views on religion, race, minorities,etc and the fact it's far easier to blame others for your shitty life than admit you're simply not capable/too lazy to change.


These days, with the woke movement, both left and right are full of low IQ morons.

 

[Grin]

In regards to the OP:

In the past, lefties were generally higher educated and had a broader world-view. They travelled more and undertook higher education more readily, thus they were more open to having their beliefs challenged. This lead to greater self reflection and desire to learn/grow, thus lending this side of the political compass to those with a higher education/IQ. It helps that the left were also mostly from a more privileged socio-economic demographic than the right.

I very much doubt that in the past, the left were "mostly from a more privileged socio-economic demographic than the right". But I do agree that maybe they had "greater self reflection and desire to learn/grow, thus lending this side of the political compass to those with a higher education/IQ."

 

[bzparkes]

I very much doubt that in the past, the left were "mostly from a more privileged socio-economic demographic than the right". But I do agree that maybe they had "greater self reflection and desire to learn/grow, thus lending this side of the political compass to those with a higher education/IQ."

That's true. I guess my assumption lies on the fact that it's far easier to set aside time for learning and introspection when you can easily afford to put food on the able.

 

[Grin]

That's true. I guess my assumption lies on the fact that it's far easier to set aside time for learning and introspection when you can easily afford to put food on the able.

Yet so much in the history of the left is all about the struggles of the working class.
The idea that the left are somehow the elite is just playing into a mythological narrative promoted by vested interests.

 

[bzparkes]

Yet so much in the history of the left is all about the struggles of the working class.
The idea that the left are somehow the elite is just playing into a mythological narrative promoted by vested interests.

Absolutely it is.

My parents were poverty stricken arts student all my life

 

[ElectricG]

Yet so much in the history of the left is all about the struggles of the working class.
The idea that the left are somehow the elite is just playing into a mythological narrative promoted by vested interests.

But is today’s left or right more likely to demonise and complain about the working class? I think the left are.

 

[Gethelred]

But is today’s left or right more likely to demonise and complain about the working class? I think the left are.

That's far more interesting a question than your predictable answer is.

 

[Grin]

But is today’s left or right more likely to demonise and complain about the working class? I think the left are.

You mean the left who are introducing new IR laws to parliament? The ones who got a 5.2% rise in the minimum wage a few months ago?