The Daily Mail has just collapsed in on its own gravity

notsoblue

...and has become a troll singularity.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... acist.html

rick_chasey

rick_chasey

From below the line.

If there is one person I can not stand and that is a snob who thinks they are intelligent because if they were intelligent and educated they wouldn't be snobs

bails87

Now Mail Online has gone one step further by running a story that not only insults its own readers, but cruelly invites them to underline the insult by making fools of themselves. In what has to be a deliberate act of "trolling", last Friday it carried a story headlined "Rightwingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study". In terms of enraging your core readership, this is the equivalent of Nuts magazine suddenly claiming only gay men masturbate to Hollyoaks babes.

When the Daily Mail calls rightwingers stupid, the result is dumbogeddon

DrLex

Joy!
I *do* like the "glitter-bombing" - how fabulous!

rick_chasey

SO disappointed this thread isn't getting more heat.

I was all set up for a hilarious afternoon.

jds_1981

Rick Chasey wrote:

SO disappointed this thread isn't getting more heat.

I was all set up for a hilarious afternoon.

I'd play, but haven't read the report yet (& can't really base anything from the mail article). Would start by querying that it doesn't distinguish between left & right wing & libertarianism & conservatism.

rick_chasey

jds_1981 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

SO disappointed this thread isn't getting more heat.

I was all set up for a hilarious afternoon.

I'd play, but haven't read the report yet (& can't really base anything from the mail article). Would start by querying that it doesn't distinguish between left & right wing & libertarianism & conservatism.

I'd be surprised if the Mail was written with references to such nuances, but suffice to say they interchange 'right-wing' and 'conservative' in the article.

jds_1981

Rick Chasey wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

SO disappointed this thread isn't getting more heat.

I was all set up for a hilarious afternoon.

I'd play, but haven't read the report yet (& can't really base anything from the mail article). Would start by querying that it doesn't distinguish between left & right wing & libertarianism & conservatism.

I'd be surprised if the Mail was written with references to such nuances, but suffice to say they interchange 'right-wing' and 'conservative' in the article.

Actually, would be very interesting to do some sort of height graph on 'intelligence' (or whatever attempt they're making on G) against that four way graph, see if any correlation.

edit: think I meant G, not Q...

sketchley

And here we are again clicking the links and keeping the DM the worlds number one website! Doh!

Someone isn't stupid.....

rick_chasey

Sketchley wrote:

And here we are again clicking the links and keeping the DM the worlds number one website! Doh!

Someone isn't stupid.....

I'll keep clicking if they have HILARIOUS stories like that.

It's not like it's an article written by Littlejohn where he blames his relative penis size inadequacy with the influx of immigrants.

UndercoverElephant

Rick Chasey wrote:

SO disappointed this thread isn't getting more heat.

I was all set up for a hilarious afternoon.

Give it time, the right-wingers probably need longer to read the article than most.

Jay dubbleU

Being right-wing obviously means the DM is too stupid to realise it has successfully disappeared up its own readership

jds_1981

The synopsis
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... 6.abstract

& a more interesting take on it
http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservati ... 03506.html

"My speculation is that it's not as simple as their model presents it," Nosek said. "I think that lower cognitive capacity can lead to multiple simple ways to represent the world, and one of those can be embodied in a right-wing ideology where 'People I don't know are threats' and 'The world is a dangerous place'. ... Another simple way would be to just assume everybody is wonderful."

For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.

For instance this 'leftwing' commenter with extreme views mayn't be the brightest of the bunch.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/co ... k/14525426

bails87

" In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general."

Doesn't sound entirely unreasonable, as for the Graun commenter......possibly not completely serious.

notsoblue

Excellent, Monbiot has given his opinion on this story now. This might prompt more response :P

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... olite-left

"It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact."

"Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly "different" others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking."

"Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo". Even for someone not yet renowned for liberal reticence, this feels hard to write."

He also links to this interesting article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... led-people

So to sum up so far, right wing people are stupid *and* nasty.

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

So to sum up so far, right wing people are stupid *and* nasty.

So mummy was correct after all? :twisted:

Mr Sworld

Where's Greg and W1 when you really want a debate....

Runs away into the panic room and slams the door....

MaxwellBygraves

I was also going to post the Monbiot article here. I thought it was good. I have always found intelligent right-wingers scariest - if people actually knew what Conservatism stands for and means, they wouldn't vote for it. Which invariably leads to them (Conservatives, Republicans etc) appealing to our 'basest, stupidest impulses' as Monbiot terms it well.

jimmypippa

Charlie Brooker did have fun with this. link again

As you might expect, many Mail Online readers didn't take kindly to a report that strived to paint them as simplistic, terrified dimwits. Many leapt from the tyres they were swinging in to furrow their brows and howl in anger. Others, tragically, began tapping rudimentary responses into the comments box. Which is where the tragi-fun really began.

"Stupidest study of them all," raged a reader called Beth. "So were the testers conservative for being so thick or were they left and using a non study to make themselves look better?" Hmmm. There's no easy answer to that. Because it doesn't make sense.

"If there is one person I can not stand and that is a snob who thinks they are intelligent because if they were intelligent and educated they wouldn't be snobs," argued Liz from London. Once you've clambered over the broken grammar, deliberately placed at the start of the sentence like a rudimentary barricade of piled-up chairs, there's a tragic conundrum at work here. She claims intellectual snootiness is ugly, which it is, but unfortunately she says it in such a stupid way it's impossible for anyone smarter than a steak-and-ale pie not to look down on her. Thus, for Liz, the crushing cycle of snobbery continues.

Monbiot's is more measured

Mind you it isn't the first study.

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

The liberals did better on the the test that you'd expect them to do (dealing with the more subtle nuance) but crucially did no worse on the test that the conservatives would do - knee jerk responses.

jds_1981

jimmypippa wrote:

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

The liberals did better on the the test that you'd expect them to do (dealing with the more subtle nuance) but crucially did no worse on the test that the conservatives would do - knee jerk responses.

Is liberal really 'opposite' to conservative? Think there's a bit more ambiguity th.an that

jds_1981

notsoblue wrote:

"It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact."

"Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly "different" others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking."

So to sum up so far, right wing people are stupid *and* nasty.

This thread so could have had legs. Suspect many people have followed this process though: -
1) Would I consider myself (vote) conservative? Yup
2) hmm, this study indicates I might well be stupid
3) hang on, study says racist + homophobic = conservative. I'm neither of those though.
4) Oh, the study seems to be having trouble with its categorisation of political leanings
5) don't touch with bargepole

Jay dubbleU

Just read the synopsis - don't know about the DM translation but what it appears to say is that lower cognitive abilities equate to greater pre-judgement in certain stereotypical situations. Politics, religion, sexual preference or nationality seem largely irrelevant.

veronese68

I read it more a of a case that lower cognitive abilities make you want to stick to what you know and (think you) understand. Which is conservatism with a small c. So, small brain leads to narrow mindedness, hardly a surprise.
Some Conservatives also fit the bill, as, I'm sure would some people that have political leanings more to the left of centre. It's just that more of the narrow mindedness is aligned with traditionally right wing views.

peat

jds_1981 wrote:

This thread so could have had legs. Suspect many people have followed this process though: -
1) Would I consider myself (vote) conservative? Yup
2) hmm, this study indicates I might well be stupid
3) hang on, study says racist + homophobic = conservative. I'm neither of those though.
4) Oh, the study seems to be having trouble with its categorisation of political leanings
5) don't touch with bargepole

Bingo Bongo!

rick_chasey

(Can't believe I'm making a non-numerous point on this thread), the article isn't saying just because you're right-wing you're stupid.

It's saying you're more likely to be stupid if you are right wing, or more specifically, you're more likely to have political traits and views that are common on the right if you are stupid.

As an aside, it does play out against the standard intelligentsia - liberal left stereotype.