Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low InterGroup Contact

[Deleted member 586536]

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41417016

 

[Taleweaver]

When you look at it like that, the fact that Trump manages to become(and remain) president is just an outcome of a failed school system...

 

[Youkai]

When you look at it like that, the fact that Trump manages to become(and remain) president is just an outcome of a failed school system...

this might be partially true but then again even if you are like the absolute genius at school it doesn't say that you are actually intelligent or anything.

Most humans are just not able to use the information they learned to make their own mind about all this stuff ... even those people who think they know it all better often are biased and or influenced by others and not always in a good way.

 

[Veho]

Please write a few sentences on the topic when starting a thread, don't just slap a link to another site and call it a day.

 

[SG854]

Please write a few sentences on the topic when starting a thread, don't just slap a link to another site and call it a day.

What if they have lower cognitive ability to construe a few sentences?

 

[stanleyopar2000]

what a shock.

I am shook I tell you. absolutely shook and flabbergasted

 

[Lumstar]

When you look at it like that, the fact that Trump manages to become(and remain) president is just an outcome of a failed school system...

Low general intelligence is inevitable from overcrowded schools that don't teach skills most people need in their daily lives. Wanting lucrative scholarship money, many schools are a gateway to sports...and not much else.

 

[SG854]

Low general intelligence is inevitable from overcrowded schools that don't teach skills most people need in their daily lives. Wanting lucrative scholarship money, many schools are a gateway to sports...and not much else.

And some teachers hate their jobs from disrespectful kids, parents and unsupportive school districts.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Cool. A study about rightwing ideology by two leftwing progressive professors from Canada. I'm sure they left their biases at the door, except for the part where they call rightwing ideology authoritarian. That got proven false during Covid.

Has this study been peer reviewed? Have these conclusions been repeated in other studies?

Don't know.

Who cares? There's a narrative that needs to be pushed.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Please write a few sentences on the topic when starting a thread, don't just slap a link to another site and call it a day.

I could of wrote a few sentences. However I choose not to since I didn't want to over simplify the study, since it has ton of nuance that I personally felt would be lost if I attempted to summarize it.

What if they have lower cognitive ability to construe a few sentences?

See above reasoning.

Post automatically merged: Oct 16, 2022

Since people are complaining about me not giving a statement on it. I'll go ahead and try to explain. However I recommend reading the study yourself. Since I'm likely going to grossly simplify.

Basically the study realizes that there is a connection between cognitive ability and intelligence, and inter groups and outer groups, and prejudice.
Going to grossly simplify. Predjuce was higher correlated with lower cognative ability, and higher intergroup inequality.

Cognitive ability is not the same as intellgence. For example. A task involving cognitive ability is being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes. While intelligence is if you know how to do math or do well on tests. Testing knowlage.

Within the study using data from a meta study. They found that conservative idealogies have a negative trend with cognative ability. They are less cognatively flexible and are more rigid. And lower integrative complexity. And they also score lower on standardized test. Along with having higher amounts of prejudice.

It doesn't mean all conservatives are predjuice. However the idealogy has a strong correlation with it. They propose (likely over simplifying again) that because consertivism itself is not forward looking (demonstrated through other studies) it is more likely to perputuate the already existing inequalities that do exist, knowingly or not.

I still feel like I haven't got the full study across. But that's a grossly simplifed version.

Has this study been peer reviewed? Have these conclusions been repeated in other studies?

You know I could be laughing about the fact that this is JSTOR. You know, the most credible archive of scientific research. To get included almost every single one without fault is peer reviewed. Like, universities pay to use it.
The department of interior consideres it credible enough that all employees gain access to it.

However I'm more laughing at the fact you likely didn't read it. And I'm double laughing because I know that once I call you out on it. It's going to be even more obivious

 

[Deleted member 114266]

You know I could be laughing about the fact that this is JSTOR. You know, the most credible archive of scientific research. To get included almost every single one without fault is peer reviewed. Like, universities pay to use it.
The department of interior consideres it credible enough that all employees gain access to it.

However I'm more laughing at the fact you likely didn't read it. And I'm double laughing because I know that once I call you out on it. It's going to be even more obivious

JSTOR is just a big search engine, and they are all the assholes who hounded Aaron Swartz co-founder of Reddit, and lead to his suicide. Aaron was reposting articles created based on taxpayer funded research.

The paper you linked is from the major publishing company Sage, who's been battling fake peer reviews and just retracted many articles. So don't take everything on that site as gospel. The scientific paper community has been ripe with fake peer reviewing as a giant scandal since 2015.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...hundreds-of-manipulated-peer-reviewed-papers/

 

[erikas]

When you look at it like that, the fact that Trump manages to become(and remain) president is just an outcome of a failed school system...

The public school system run by the democrats? That school system?

Post automatically merged: Oct 17, 2022

I wonder if people who talk about how prejudice is wrong ever heard of the fallacy fallacy. Having a prejudicial view means you heard it somewhere else and adopted it without thinking about it. It does not mean the view itself is wrong.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

snipped for a moment

 

[LainaGabranth]

Cool. A study about rightwing ideology by two leftwing progressive professors from Canada. I'm sure they left their biases at the door, except for the part where they call rightwing ideology authoritarian. That got proven false during Covid.

Has this study been peer reviewed? Have these conclusions been repeated in other studies?

Don't know.

Who cares? There's a narrative that needs to be pushed.

This would be funnier if your trust in science and studies wasn't purely post hoc based on dogma

 

[Deleted member 586536]

JSTOR is just a big search engine, and they are all the assholes who hounded Aaron Swartz co-founder of Reddit, and lead to his suicide. Aaron was reposting articles created based on taxpayer funded research.

The paper you linked is from the major publishing company Sage, who's been battling fake peer reviews and just retracted many articles. So don't take everything on that site as gospel. The scientific paper community has been ripe with fake peer reviewing as a giant scandal since 2015.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...hundreds-of-manipulated-peer-reviewed-papers/

Let's look at that article shall we? I've edited this about four times now, primarily because clarity issues. Or things that I learned that changed how I look at the article.
Here's the problems I have with your source.
First

in the opinion section. That's red flag one.
Second red flag, Thomas Lifson own's American thinker, (and infact is re hosting his article) It's a conflict of interest, since the owner should not be the writer, due to, surprise, bias.

I've already checked. Retraction watch is legit, it's lead by actual scientists. and with a name.
So this is a real problem then right?right?
Let's look at that link for their source "another case"

https://retractionwatch.com/2014/07...review-and-citation-ring-60-papers-retracted/

Notice the date... 2014.

We suddenly jumped 8 years backwards.

huh. Strange. It lists on "journal of vibration and control" not JSOR. But wait there's more.
Let's look at the updated post, which is strange, why would the article not use the most updated information?

Oh. So in other words. Not affecting the JSOR at all. (it's in one specific publication website)
Strange. It's almost like the article you linked, intentionally puts things out of context, and tries to appear legitimate.

The smoking gun that proves it?

later on the page it links with "continue to be cited"
What is it?
https://www.science.org/content/art...lous-covid-19-papers-ignore-their-retractions
Oh so covid vaccine research right?
haha

Nope it's about hydroxychloroquine.
But that's the thing. What's the most popular article(s) on Life News?

HMMMMMMMMMMMM. I wonder if this entire article, is designed to mislead?
Let's take a look at massive, can't do things out of order can we?

Huh

So let me get this straight.
The article you linked is from a place I've never heard of.
The article you linked intentionally makes it so old news sounds like new.
ANNNND fails to state exactly what was the set of articles that where bad were published.
ANNNNND in a sister website, the most popular articles, conflict with the actual fucking sources on the matter from the same article, but intentionally designed to sound as if it supports those headlines.

Your source is bogus. Because it's misconstruing the sources whenever it possibly can to fit a narrative. They didn't state what specific journal was the bad actor. They just left it nondescript.

 

[Deleted member 114266]

huh. Strange. It lists on "journal of vibration and control" not JSOR. But wait there's more.
Let's look at the updated post, which is strange, why would the article not use the most updated information?

Oh. So in other words. Not affecting the JSOR at all. (it's in one specific publication website)
Strange. It's almost like the article you linked, intentionally puts things out of context, and tries to appear legitimate.

Again JSOR is not a scientific journal. They are a library of publications. This isn't to discredit this particular article as I have no specific insight into it. But you act like JSOR is some magical thing beyond repute. But the scientific journal industry has been having massive issues with fake peer reviews, and data that was signed off but when later rechecked couldn't be reproduced.

But go ahead believing it's all infallible, and incapable of having an agenda to make the results one way or the other.

 

[Marc_LFD]

I could of

Hate to be that guy, but it's could have.

I get it it may sound as "of" depending on the accent and pronunciation though it's always have.

Could have. Should have. Must have.

In a way, it's similar to you're and your. And they're, there, their.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Hate to be that guy, but it's could have.

hate to be that guy, but it's also could've.
Sorry that typing a summary out on a phone, on a forms page, aka the most informal place to be writing in, and making a mistake on contractions. When you all usually write one sentence responses, Or fail to check your sources.
If you REALLY want to be that guy, you could complain about how my paragraphs are inconsistent, or that my comma's go on for longer than they should and in need of a period.
So next time, at least choose to be consistent if your going to pretend that you "hate being that guy."
Instead of giving a nothing burger response, unrelated to the subject inconsistently.

 

[Taleweaver]

The public school system run by the democrats? That school system?

I dunno. How many school systems does the US have?

 

[LainaGabranth]

Sometimes I wish I lived in the Twilight Zone that the far right on this forum lives in. A world where the democrats rule everything, and are actually communist, and people are just going around being as queer as they want? Like that sounds fucking awesome. Why did the far right have to create a utopia to be mad at?? lmao