This guy says he has de-bunked the studies that show correlation between low IQ

[Maraya1969]

and conservatism and racism. I can't understand what the Hell he is saying. Do any mathematicians know if he is just doing a 2 step of does he have anything significant here?

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5118

[Jim__]

1. Did you see this criticism?

Source:

Wow. That is the worst critique of anything I've ever seen.

The subjects in the test were given a fifty question questionnaire and only 13 questions are used, and this jackass is complaining about that? What the fuck? That is how you get honest answers in social science! If all the questions are related to the topic, the people answering can get a sense of what the study is about and begin to second guess the answers that the study "wants". The participants try to "win" by figuring out the answers that the scientists want to hear and then giving those answers.

You get more accurate answers by throwing in ringer questions that are not scored. If the overall test is filled with irrelevancies, the participants can't figure out what the overall goal of the test is (because they don't know which ones are real and which ones are fake), and the overall answers are more accurate to their real feelings. This is a documented effect, and it's how all top level social science is done.

If someone is going to complain about that in an effort to debunk a study, they are not worth listening to. William M. Briggs is a social science illiterate, or he's deliberately lying about the study because he doesn't like the implications. Since he's an adjunct statistics professor at Cornell and couldn't possibly be unaware of how one goes about getting results from survey questions, I believe the only possible conclusion is that he is a liar. Kindly never link to that asshole again.

It's linked to from your link. The original author says he was aware of this technique; but he did cite the use of this technique as a criticism of the study without mentioning that it is an accepted methodology. That tells me that his analysis is both biased and deliberately misleading.

I tend to question the use of IQ tests as a measure of intelligence. The criticism you cite raises some legitimate questions. But it raises them as if they are specific to this one study, they aren't.

I think some of his criticisms are valid. But, based on the fact that he is being deliberately misleading, I wouldn't take his article seriously.

[djean111]

2. I tend to not believe any of the studies.

There are a lot of very intelligent and greedy conservatives.
And, for a stupid group, the tea party sure seems to be running all of Washington, on the (probably unknowing) behalf of the conservative corporations.
So, supposedly being more intelligent than "them" isn't actually very useful in real life. Just seems to lead to big complicated bargains, where the other side pretty much gets what they wanted in the first place.
Dems seem to be pretty bad bargainers, unless, of course, they are getting what they really wanted all along, under the cover of bipartisanship or whatever.
I don't think I'd bring anyone from Washington along with me if I was buying a car. I'd end up paying $50,000 for an old run down 1982 pickup truck with bad brakes.

[Posteritatis]

8. Yeah; a lot of these define "intelligent" or "not mentally ill," etc., as "agrees with me." (nt)

[bemildred]

3. That story has always reeked of bullshit.

I am as "left wing" as any, and I think Conservatism as now defined is just plain stupid, and I can do the math. But as a matter of empirical scientific study of people I don't think this sort of thing stands up. It explains without insight, the hidden sense of what is being said: "conservatives are dumber than liberals" is a factoid, it tells you nothing in any particular situation, it's a stereotype in other words, cast in the form of a statistical study. Very popular these days.

[Maraya1969]

5. Well wait. They studied over 15,000 people for many years and they found that

the ones with the lower IQ tests results tended more toward conservatism and racism. I believe that. Conservatives like things black and white. So do racists. To be able to think abstractly is to be able to accept new ideas and accept people. Racists are like my neighbor who looks at a statistics of high black crime and comes to the conclusion that blacks are criminals. Non-racists know how to think and realize other factors are going on such as profiling, blacks being convicted much more often than whites and other things.

And grant it from that perspective there would be other things that contribute to racism and conservatism also. Especially what you are taught.

I was looking for an explanation of that one man's "debunking" which it seems is has been "debunked itself.

[bemildred]

6. Yeah, it sounds reasonable, I know.

That does not make it science, is my point. I don't think it's really science.

If they just made their argument in a form something like you just did, I'd be OK with that. As I said, I think Conservatism as presently defined, is stupid. When that observation it is dressed up with statistics as in the case of this study, I find that a bit dishonest, an appeal to scientific method without the necessary rigor about content that goes with it. The casting of biases based in current political issues as observations about some objective reality.

[napoleon_in_rags]

9. Its kind of a slippery slope.

I've done years of social work with people with low IQ's, into the disabled range. There are a series of traits: Seeing the world in terms of good vs. evil, waving the flag and trying to be patriotic, etc. But it really has little to do with actual politics, and everything to do with a group people trying to fit in to a society they don't fully understand due to their disability. The problem I have with this study is this: So how am I supposed to feel about people with really low IQ's, e.g. developmentally disabled people? Am I supposed to be dismissive of them as conservatives?

There's certainly people in the low IQ range who like the simple narratives of good old fashioned Americans vs. all that's complex, weird, new, hard to understand, etc. But when we label them as conservatives (or racists, which is generally not true though this group will fail any test politically correct nuance) We are turning a blind eye to the Wall st. guys with millions of dollars, high IQs who are actually driving Republican policy, all to make ourselves feel superior. The Right wingers that matter are very capable people, and we should face that fact.

[djean111]

11. Exactly.

""There's certainly people in the low IQ range who like the simple narratives of good old fashioned Americans vs. all that's complex, weird, new, hard to understand, etc. But when we label them as conservatives (or racists, which is generally not true though this group will fail any test politically correct nuance) We are turning a blind eye to the Wall st. guys with millions of dollars, high IQs who are actually driving Republican policy, all to make ourselves feel superior. The Right wingers that matter are very capable people, and we should face that fact. ""
I find it funny when people who are literally watching conservatives dismantle the US dismiss them all as stupid.
Money and greed are non-partisan. Being a conservative in today's world seems to be the quickest way to riches, because the Dems have not figured out how to fight back, as a party. Do they even want to?

[napoleon_in_rags]

12. I think those moral narratives are powerful.

Good old fashioned right vs. wrong. That's the stuff which really speaks to the situation. Liberals like to laugh, which is fine. But you get stuff like dismissing conservatives as these back-country hicks, and making fun of that kind of person. That's where trouble begins, because you're setting up a situation where we consider it a "win" so long as Jesse Duke of Hazzard isn't in charge, which he never has been. That leaves the door wide open for the same slick, intelligent well dressed Wall st. Republican to walk right in, as happens again and again and again. People need to understand that the elite here who really matter here is going to be attractive, tanned, intelligent, fit, well dressed, and doing immoral actions...And any critique other than of the immoral actions is missing the point.

[intaglio]

4. Well, after reading the first part of his article

He has nothing.

The raises the issue of what tests were used at the first examination, wondering why the Peabody Test was not used without realising that the Peabody is far from a gold standard and infamous for being biased racially, culturally and physiologically; e.g. Peabody cannot be applied to the blind. There have been attempts to update Peabody but they have all shown themselves to be ineffectual at best. Instead the studies examined by the NCDS used tests designed to eliminate some of these biases.

Next he queries why only 13 out of the total number of questions were use to identify conservative traits, completely unaware that many extra questions are always asked in such cases, specifically to disguise what is being tested for. It is well known that those being examined will attempt to answer in a manner that those doing the testing will find acceptable.

Briggs' ignorance of standard testing protocols shows him to be a complete dunce in the field of psychological testing no matter what is statistical chops.

Note also that comments are closed, a standard technique of those who wish to ignore valid criticism.

[Gothmog]

7. Denial is amusing

Denial is not just a river in Africa. The analysis attacking the study is amusing

[Warpy]

10. Yes, he's doing quite a tapdance there

and trying to equate a basic scholastic achievement test with an IQ test when they do completely different things. He's apples to oranges all through his article and proves the opposite of what he's trying to, using himself as a shining example.

His complaint about the red herring questions in the test is also misguided. Such questions are always put into any sort of social science survey so that the people being tested won't know what the test is really about and tailor their answers to who they want to be seen as instead of who they are.

I find more of a correlation of lower overall intelligence with social conservatives than with economic conservatives. The latter can be incredibly bright even as they are greed driven and are usually the ones herding the duller social conservatives around to increase their overall numbers during election season.

Mr. Briggs might do well to take a year or so off from writing critiques to learn about the subjects he's trying to critique.

[defacto7]

13. As if it matters.

Sorry, there are too many loose strings taken for granted to either support the study or support its significance. One is the significance of IQ tests themselves. Fix the IQ dilemma, then redo the study if IQ is found to be relevant, then maybe the outcome of the study would be relevant.

[MrSlayer]

14. I know conservatives that are really smart people.

I mean MENSA smart. But they just have an authoritarian streak in them. They don't care about other people. Self-interest is their only interest. They recognize Palin and Bachmann as absolute idiots the same as we do but are happy to support them because they advance the fascist ideology these Birchers believe in. These people would have made top of the line Nazis.

Conservatives are NOT all idiot mouth breathers. Some of them are really smart but really selfish, possibly even evil, people.