Leftists confirmed as mentally challenged by scientific study
Scroll to see replies
That's what most people's hand-drawn circles would look like (roughly). Therefore, the lefties were more likely to automatically think analytically and assume the shape was intended as a circle even though it's vaguely ovular. Conclusion: lefties are more intelligent.
Which is of course as stupid as the conclusion made by the OP. Intelligence isn't defined by the word you use for a shape, duh.
Which is of course as stupid as the conclusion made by the OP. Intelligence isn't defined by the word you use for a shape, duh.
Original post by Nephthys
The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology recently carried out a test in which they asked people to identify a shape.
No it didn't... it published a researchers paper done by someone else which is very definitely a different thing, Just thought that might be worth noting since we're talking about wobbly circles and getting your facts straight.
The shape was what I would call an irregular ellipse, a sort of vaguely oval outline, except quite inconsistent in its circumference.
That's nice - unfortunately the participants were asked
is it a circle? yes/no
presumably people said yes if they noticed the wobbliness and decided that it was *supposed* to represent a circle, i.e. they decided to answer a slightly different question.
The researchers discovered that people who said the shape was ‘a circle’ were more likely to be liberals. People who correctly identified the shape as definitely not a circle, but something else altogether, were more likely to be possessed of conservative political views.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/the-political-wisdom-of-people-who-dont-even-know-what-a-circle-is/
conservative defined as meaning wanting to outlaw same sex marriage (against tory policy) spend more on the military (against tory policy)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Actually the only "perfect circles" are the ones that exist in our heads when we imagine abstract mathematics.
Original post by Quantex
What the paper actually said....
Original post by Drummerz
Whoever wrote this article is an idiot.
Original post by TheGuyReturns
By your logic of only being able to call a perfect circle a circle... no illustrated circle is ever a circle. Such a "real" circle could only ever be described with mathematics.
Original post by cranbrook_aspie
That's what most people's hand-drawn circles would look like (roughly).
Like psychology is real science.
Original post by Nephthys
Yes, exactly what righties like your good self have been doing by creating threads like this ever since your favourite newspaper came out with this.
Now, let me get back to caring about actual political issues - don't worry, you wouldn't understand that concept so don't waste your remaining half a brain cell trying.
Says the spectator which is filthy dirty unashamedly right wing.
There are many equivalent studies saying that conservatives are less intelligent that liberals and the left wing.
More to the point look at old TheCitizenAct with a new account to hide the fact he's still the same obsessed and self interested guy.
More to the point look at old TheCitizenAct with a new account to hide the fact he's still the same obsessed and self interested guy.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Little Popcorns
There are many equivalent studies saying that conservatives are less intelligent that liberals and the left wing.
Quantax has already pointed out that the study's author/authors did not reach the OP's conclusion. It's misreporting.
"by the tendency for conservatives to show greater sensitivity to deviance than liberals, even among targets lacking social or functional relevance" is the crux of their abstract.
This thread and stupid article are just an example of idiot journalists subverting an already shakey scientific progress. They don't give the reader any understanding of what the paper actually said and just shoe horn their own views into it. Then a bunch of morons go and make a thread like this laughing about the stuuupid liberals.
Original post by Little Popcorns
There are many equivalent studies saying that conservatives are less intelligent that liberals and the left wing.
More to the point look at old TheCitizenAct with a new account to hide the fact he's still the same obsessed and self interested guy.
More to the point look at old TheCitizenAct with a new account to hide the fact he's still the same obsessed and self interested guy.
Why do you have to be so patronising and make personal attacks? Immature much.
knew this already
Original post by Gears265
Yeh right. If Edexcel, I don't remember the chapters as it was 3/4 years ago but I'm sure it's FP3, chapter 2 I think. All I know is, the page format was orange and it talks about ellipses verging on to the realm of circle geometry. It may even be chapter 3 or 4 but it was a long time ago. Heck hyperbolic geometry and curves would answer it for you.
Yeah it's chapter 2. Good times
Simply put non sequitur.
The same conclusion can be made for right wingers given that studies find they are less intelligent.
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
This article matches the level of bias as your one but it talks about other studies that find similar attitudes.
http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/
Specifically the last which is about a study indicating that conservatives are less able to deal with complex ideas and are more prone to acting out of fear.
The same conclusion can be made for right wingers given that studies find they are less intelligent.
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
This article matches the level of bias as your one but it talks about other studies that find similar attitudes.
http://reverbpress.com/politics/proof-republicans-are-stupid/
Specifically the last which is about a study indicating that conservatives are less able to deal with complex ideas and are more prone to acting out of fear.
More often than not, 'conventional wisdom' suggests the left is smarter than the right. The truth is it's impossible to make such broad, sweeping generalisations but what is clear - according to THE surveys - is that the left is massively over-represented in academia. Now, presuming you take academia as an indicator of intelligence - I wouldn't - we have to ask why this is the case .
Well, for me, it's pretty obvious why academia is disproportionately left-wing - most left-wing ideologies, philosophies and beliefs need to be intellectualised or rationalised. Left-wing ideas, particularly around 'social justice', rarely stand on their own merits and they are all orientated around change (any change will do). The right, on the other hand, is, simplistically, a reflection of the state of nature and how best to mould it into civil society. The left believes it's above the state of nature, the right works alongside the state of nature.
Much of the theoretical underpinnings of right-wing thought have been in place for centuries. Most of the left's 'ideologies' or 'ideas' have only come about in the past few decades. The left constantly needs to 're-brand' itself (communism, socialism, progressivism, social democrats and they even bastardised 'liberalism'), the right is universally 'conservative' or, in American circles, 'libertarian.' The right is orientated around the individual and believes people are an end in themselves and not a means to an end, the left believes the imagined group is the primary unit of political analysis and individuals are a means to an end.
Well, for me, it's pretty obvious why academia is disproportionately left-wing - most left-wing ideologies, philosophies and beliefs need to be intellectualised or rationalised. Left-wing ideas, particularly around 'social justice', rarely stand on their own merits and they are all orientated around change (any change will do). The right, on the other hand, is, simplistically, a reflection of the state of nature and how best to mould it into civil society. The left believes it's above the state of nature, the right works alongside the state of nature.
Much of the theoretical underpinnings of right-wing thought have been in place for centuries. Most of the left's 'ideologies' or 'ideas' have only come about in the past few decades. The left constantly needs to 're-brand' itself (communism, socialism, progressivism, social democrats and they even bastardised 'liberalism'), the right is universally 'conservative' or, in American circles, 'libertarian.' The right is orientated around the individual and believes people are an end in themselves and not a means to an end, the left believes the imagined group is the primary unit of political analysis and individuals are a means to an end.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TheCitizenAct
More often than not, 'conventional wisdom' suggests the left is smarter than the right. The truth is it's impossible to make such broad, sweeping generalisations but what is clear - according to THE surveys - is that the left is massively over-represented in academia. Now, presuming you take academia as an indicator of intelligence - I wouldn't - we have to ask why this is the case .
Well, for me, it's pretty obvious why academia is disproportionately left-wing - most left-wing ideologies, philosophies and beliefs need to be intellectualised or rationalised. Left-wing ideas, particularly around 'social justice', rarely stand on their own merits and they are all orientated around change (any change will do). The right, on the other hand, is, simplistically, a reflection of the state of nature and how best to mould it into civil society. The left believes it's above the state of nature, the right works alongside the state of nature.
Much of the theoretical underpinnings of right-wing thought have been in place for centuries. Most of the left's 'ideologies' or 'ideas' have only come about in the past few decades. The left constantly needs to 're-brand' itself (communism, socialism, progressivism, social democrats and they even bastardised 'liberalism'
, the right is universally 'conservative' or, in American circles, 'libertarian.' The right is orientated around the individual and believes people are an end in themselves and not a means to an end, the left believes the imagined group is the primary unit of political analysis and individuals are a means to an end.
Well, for me, it's pretty obvious why academia is disproportionately left-wing - most left-wing ideologies, philosophies and beliefs need to be intellectualised or rationalised. Left-wing ideas, particularly around 'social justice', rarely stand on their own merits and they are all orientated around change (any change will do). The right, on the other hand, is, simplistically, a reflection of the state of nature and how best to mould it into civil society. The left believes it's above the state of nature, the right works alongside the state of nature.
Much of the theoretical underpinnings of right-wing thought have been in place for centuries. Most of the left's 'ideologies' or 'ideas' have only come about in the past few decades. The left constantly needs to 're-brand' itself (communism, socialism, progressivism, social democrats and they even bastardised 'liberalism'
, the right is universally 'conservative' or, in American circles, 'libertarian.' The right is orientated around the individual and believes people are an end in themselves and not a means to an end, the left believes the imagined group is the primary unit of political analysis and individuals are a means to an end.I actually agree that academia is not an inherent qualifier of being correct. That is different from intelligence however. It is fair to say that academics are generally intelligent. That doesn't make them correct however.
I';m not sure why you think left wing thought being very rational and intellectual is a bad a thing and right wing thought rejects rationalism as being good.... I would hope you were capable fo creating rational arguments about why your right individualism is correct or desirable etc. Unless you want to portray conservatives as simpletons scared of change.
Also you are wrong about Socialism being new and conservatism being old and universal. What conservatives stand for also gets rebranded as time passes and you have different factions. But I agree that so called progressive ideologies are goign to bring a more experimental mindset, which means they will change. Socialism, Conservatism, Liberalism are all philosophies that came out of the enlightenment but they have their roots in older philosophy. The Greeks wrote about issues such as democracy etc. Socialism is often concerned with maximizing democracy. Utopian philosophy is not at all new.
Original post by TheCitizenAct
More often than not, 'conventional wisdom' suggests the left is smarter than the right. The truth is it's impossible to make such broad, sweeping generalisations but what is clear - according to THE surveys - is that the left is massively over-represented in academia. Now, presuming you take academia as an indicator of intelligence - I wouldn't - we have to ask why this is the case .
Well, for me, it's pretty obvious why academia is disproportionately left-wing - most left-wing ideologies, philosophies and beliefs need to be intellectualised or rationalised. Left-wing ideas, particularly around 'social justice', rarely stand on their own merits and they are all orientated around change (any change will do). The right, on the other hand, is, simplistically, a reflection of the state of nature and how best to mould it into civil society. The left believes it's above the state of nature, the right works alongside the state of nature.
Much of the theoretical underpinnings of right-wing thought have been in place for centuries. Most of the left's 'ideologies' or 'ideas' have only come about in the past few decades. The left constantly needs to 're-brand' itself (communism, socialism, progressivism, social democrats and they even bastardised 'liberalism'), the right is universally 'conservative' or, in American circles, 'libertarian.' The right is orientated around the individual and believes people are an end in themselves and not a means to an end, the left believes the imagined group is the primary unit of political analysis and individuals are a means to an end.
Well, for me, it's pretty obvious why academia is disproportionately left-wing - most left-wing ideologies, philosophies and beliefs need to be intellectualised or rationalised. Left-wing ideas, particularly around 'social justice', rarely stand on their own merits and they are all orientated around change (any change will do). The right, on the other hand, is, simplistically, a reflection of the state of nature and how best to mould it into civil society. The left believes it's above the state of nature, the right works alongside the state of nature.
Much of the theoretical underpinnings of right-wing thought have been in place for centuries. Most of the left's 'ideologies' or 'ideas' have only come about in the past few decades. The left constantly needs to 're-brand' itself (communism, socialism, progressivism, social democrats and they even bastardised 'liberalism'), the right is universally 'conservative' or, in American circles, 'libertarian.' The right is orientated around the individual and believes people are an end in themselves and not a means to an end, the left believes the imagined group is the primary unit of political analysis and individuals are a means to an end.
This is literally absurd. One the studies posted regarding right wing and intelligent didn't use academia as a standing point, they measured cognitive behaviour, such as the ability to identify shapes (similar to the study in the op), but also other methods to test cognitive ability.
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html
Your ramblings indicate you haven't actually measured the studies referenced. Or if you have that you didn't understand them
A second study found that liberals were more able to deal with complex ideas and are more likely to base their response on irrational fear.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds
And a third found that Low effort thought promoted political conservativism.
http://2012election.procon.org/sourcefiles/low-effort-thought-promotes-political-conservatism-2012.pdf
Also not sure if you are trying to reference Kant, if you are I would like to point out he was a liberal.
(edited 8 years ago)
Funny thing is that I'm left-wing, and hoping to study Physics next year at university. Not mentally challenged at all.
As a biologist who, as part of their degree, was trained in rigorously criticising interpretations of studies, I'm telling you that you're wrong in your interpretation 
There isn't much that annoys me more than bad science reporting/interpretation. This sort of jumping to conclusions and jumping on the bandwagon was how we got into the MMR mess (thanks, mass reporting media)
There isn't much that annoys me more than bad science reporting/interpretation. This sort of jumping to conclusions and jumping on the bandwagon was how we got into the MMR mess (thanks, mass reporting media)
Original post by sleepyspider
Funny thing is that I'm left-wing, and hoping to study Physics next year at university. Not mentally challenged at all.
Ironically, I'm a lefty biologist, and between me and OP I'm the one who's more correct on the interpretation of the study (i.e. that lefties are stupid is fallacious)...
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Do you learn to read people's minds when studying psychology?
- Compelling reasons student finance
- confusion about future careers
- What is the special study unit at Exeter medical school?
- Should I do EPQ
- OCR A Level Psychology paper 2!!
- My experience studying MPharmacy
- Psychology degree
- What Support Does DMU Offer You?
- just starting a-levels
- Nursing
- Mental Health and Motivation at University.
- University accomodations
- Struggling to decide EPQ question!!!
- Psychology or Law?
- Over payment
- Student Loans- Returning to University
- Regarding student finance eligibility
- Looking for application advice after past failed attempts at university
- Completely fed up
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
