Are liberals smarter than conservatives? - Slate article claims study rigged

[liberal N proud]

Liberal Interpretation
Rigging a study to make conservatives look stupid.
By William Saletan

Are liberals smarter than conservatives?

It looks that way, according to a study published this week in Nature Neuroscience. In a rapid response test—you press a button if you're given one signal, but not if you're given a different signal—the authors found that conservatives were "more likely to make errors of commission," whereas "stronger liberalism was correlated with greater accuracy." They concluded that "a more conservative orientation is related to greater persistence in a habitual response pattern, despite signals that this response pattern should change."

The conservative case against this study is easy to make. Sure, we're fonder of old ways than you are. That's in our definition. Some of our people are obtuse; so are some of yours. If you studied the rest of us in real life, you'd find that while we second-guess the status quo less than you do, we second-guess putative reforms more than you do, so in terms of complexity, ambiguity, and critical thinking, it's probably a wash. Also, our standard of "information" is a bit tougher than the blips and fads you fall for. Sometimes, these inclinations lead us astray. But over the long run, they've served us and society pretty well. It's just that you notice all the times we were wrong and ignore all the times we were right.

In fact, that's exactly what you've done in this study: You've manufactured a tiny world of letters, half-seconds, and button-pushing, so you can catch us in clear errors and keep out the part of life where our tendencies correct yours. And now you feel great about yourselves. Congratulations. You haven't told us much about our way of thinking. But you've told us a lot about yours.

http://www.slate.com/id/2173965

[Skittles]

1. I don't know that repukes are necessarily less intelligent

but I know for sure they are mean, selfish, greedy people

[ShortnFiery]

3. With extra emphasis on GREEDY. :-) nt

[Skittles]

4. I truly think they lack an empathy gene

as long as they've got theirs they're just satisfied. Now the ones who don't "got theirs" - OK, they truly ARE less intelligent. :o

[slampoet]

17. I have the empathy gene and constanly mistify conservatives and other selfish people....

"How did you know they were going to do that?"

Because I though about how they might feel.

"Then why can't you sell them on this idea."

Because I actually care how they feel.



Now that I'm over 30 i am starting to realize how very few people actually have the ability to see an other person's point of view (especially if that person grew up in a different culture or language).

[Skittles]

19. I think being WILLING to see another point of view is a big step

like many alcoholics, repukes remain in a constant state of denial

[liberal N proud]

5. But what explains the low income republicans?

The ones who constantly vote against their own best interest?
I don't know how to explain people like that other than they don't think for themselves.

[YOY]

13. The lack of natural predators in the food chain

n/t

[ShortnFiery]

2. The folks at Slate who concocted this article are RW ass-kissing ...

meatballs. :P

Enjoy the koolaid you morAns! ;)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

6. HaHaHaHaHa! The author's entire deconstruction consists of "You call this a study?"

:rofl:

His other argument, "Whatever".

Nice validation, Mr. Saletan. MKJ

[Roland99]

7. "I know you are but what am I?"

That's how that whiny opinion piece ca be summed.

[Kutjara]

8. Most hilarious of all is that these characters...

...call themselves "conservative." What are they conserving? The planet? Nope. The principles of the Constitution? Not a chance. American ideals of justice and fair play? Not on your Nelly.

What they are is reactionaries. They should always be referred to as such.

Or fascists. That would work too.

[B Calm]

11. I never could understand what makes them conservative...

[greenman3610]

9. John Stuart Mill said it best

'Not all conservatives are stupid people, but most stupid people are conservative."

[slampoet]

18. Exactly. I think we all would have fewer complaints if the GOP was run by the William F. Buckley's

[Hersheygirl]

10. Of course democrats are smarter then republicans.

How many times has * lied and yet they believe every word that comes out of his mouth. To me, that's just plain stupidity. Evidently they can't even put 2 and 2 together.

[PDenton]

12. this makes no sense

Yes, it is possible that liberals make mistakes, even mistakes on serious matters such as social or foreign policy, however, I'd submit that the liberals in general would also be able to spot problems faster and correct them. For instance at one time Women's Liberation and race-based eugenics were both liberal positions, but only one of them stood the tests of time and examination. OTOH, Creationism is a conservative position that is quite old, really starting in the early 20th century as a social movement, has been attacked numerous times, is ridiculous as the flying spaghetti monster, yet alot of people still hold onto it as something more than a religious story. Conservative mindsets seem more commited to a position even when evidence is shown that it is wrong.

The study speaks for itself- liberals think more, conservatives think less.

[zbdent]

14. Um ... uh, Slate ... which party ridicules "intellectuals"?

You know, ridiculing the ones who actually think about problems and try to come up with solutions?

And which party sits there and says that, no matter what is proposed by the "intellectuals", it will cost way too much to put into place, and who will pay for it?

Seems to me like the Repukes are the ones who want to totally dumb down America ... and they're succeeding ...

[slampoet]

15. He doesn't actually use any real terms to try to disarm the study does he?

He just does the LAZY Journalist thing of saying.....

"There are some that say you do and some that say you don't and gosh i tend to agree with them."

[The Vinyl Ripper]

16. I think this phrase is at the heart of the matter...

"Also, our standard of "information" is a bit tougher than the blips and fads you fall for."

Yeah, like Saddam was responsible for 9/11..

There were WMD's in Iraq.

GW Bush is a great leader.

Etc..

[gatorboy]

20. It depends, really. They're pretty bright when it comes to making a buck.

Aaaaaaaand that's about it.

[depakid]

23. Some also know sports- and can actually compile data

and work out esoteric statistics.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. and the flat earth is 7,019 yrs old, too

because that is the Status Quo Ante

to quote my favorite, leather-clad, Prada-wearing, incredibly successful SexState.

[gatorboy]

24. Speaking of which....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/18/new-view-cohost-sherri_n_64864.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. O - H - - M - Y - - G - A - W - D

Leave No Childs' behind should be applied to parents as well as kids.

[depakid]

22. Saletan is an idiot

This study is simply another in a long line of research going back 50+ years.

There's a meta-analysis on point that discusses many similar results:

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf

Not that a hack like Saletan would ever take the time to read it and inform himself- before embarrassing himself.

[booley]

26. Here's a crazy idea

Since this IS a SCIENTIFIC study being published so it's peer reviewed, we coud wait to see what other scientists say.

Because maybe it's my own biases at work, but Slate seems to be engaging in false balence at best, spinning at worst.