Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
01.27.12 - 1:01 PM
Sorry, Bigots: You're Dumb
Science has confirmed what some of us long suspected but were (sometimes) too polite to say: People who hold racist and rabid right-wing views are, to put it bluntly, stupid, or at least stupider than other people. A new study finds that children with low intelligence grow into Tea Party-ish adults who hold socially conservative views and would like black, gay and other troublesome types to just go away, please. It is suspected that some of these people will not be happy with the findings and may even take to the streets with signs like this. As always, we wish them better spelling.
"There is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world."
Comments are closed
90 Comments so far
Show AllNothing here that we didn't know already. Racsist bigots, please stay home undey your rocks and let the rest of us take care of you. Blue states give, red states take. It's simple, baggers, you're AS A CLASS, stuuuupid! Stop watchin Hannity and get a life!!
There is also a schizophrenic element that is fostered by the likes of Koch funding - the fostering of a future that fails to connect to the stream of history.
One indigenous observation//perspective that rings clarion clear to me goes something like this: The future is actually perceived as being just behind us - at our shoulder-, with the presence of the thread of history, which is real no matter how it is ignored. The past and how we perceive it is before us in the lens we use moving forward. This occurs in the eternal present.
Our experience of the eternal present is going through the emerging awareness that 'ego' as situated in a consumer / Bernaysian context, is not capable of being in the eternal stream of consciousness. It is a thing-ification/calcification fostered by identity being shaped by imposed values of someone else's notion of how much value can be extracted for the profit of another. Gotta have a humvee to be cool, gotta have 15 houses, gotta have....more, more, more - especially if I don't have enough to climb the ladder of perpetually deferred dreams. See a loop anywhere?
Here's a sobering thought: when these idiots vote for Republicans they largely get what they want. When liberals vote for Democrats they don't.
What was that Forrest Gump quote, "Stupid is as stupid does."?
So when liberals vote for Democrats and don't get what they want, and continue to vote that way, who is stupider? or stupidest. Even if they can spell.
Republicans get what they want when they vote? You mean like the millions of manufacturing jobs lost in the last ten years?
Sure thing buddy. Whatever you say. Just keep clinging to your gun and jesus. Good luck with that.
In Wisconsin did the republicans want the lying piece of dog shit governor that they voted for? Or Ohio? Or Florida? The last few months that G W and Cheney were in office America was losing 750 thousand jobs a month, is that what the republicans voted for? Maybe!
Judging by the support said "lying piece of dog shit governor" has with Republican voters, yes, they got what they voted for, and then some.
Can anyone think of ANY Democrat at ANY level of elected office coming out swinging as hard as a Scott Walker or a Chris Christie for their constituents?
These idiots vote for evil and stupid and they get evil and stupid. It engenders loyalty.
"You mean like the millions of manufacturing jobs lost in the last ten years?"
Well, yes, actually a good many industry donors wanted exactly that, free trade agreements so that they could end Americans jobs by the tens of thousands, and move them somewhere with fewer labor and environmental regulations. Were you an adult when "fast-track NAFTA" passed?
Labor unions gave tens of millions of dollars to Democrats and ended up with Bill Clinton, who also pushed NAFTA. Surely you know this..?
Fantastic question!
People planning on voting democrat care to answer?
One must also consider that most people who do go to the polls, vote against the person they don't want, and that most in reality, don't want any of them. Coupled with all those who feel it is a waste of gas to even drive to the polls to vote for any of the clowns, I would say that the vast majority of us get what we don't want! Bend over and spread your cheeks folks, here comes another election.
Yeah, when conservatives vote Republican, they sure do get what they want but they're masochists - unless you <3 shit and abuse - you're SOL.
They think they get what they think they want. I don't think it's too different for Democratic voters though.
Criticizing the authoritarian followers, the low-ranking members of the right-wing, is only acceptable among the most lowly-ranked left-wing. It's absolutely unacceptable among the more influential. Here's why: It's acceptable among our less-influential by our compassion. We see that by criticizing their fellow human beings, who are also powerless as they, they are eroding their solidarity, and only helping elites build the walls of their division, and the chains of their slavery. The people need to help each other build solidarity, not division. We have to encourage this, and practice it. The influential among us, on the other hand, have special responsibilities, so there isn't as much room for our compassion toward them. The influential, inadvertently or not, when building divisions among the people, are helping the cause of the elites, by contributing support toward the one faction or the other in the elite's political juggernaut. In this case, criticism of authoritarian followers supports the Demok party. There is little justification for supporting the Demoks. The Demoks have the blood of one million Iraqis on their hands. They deliberately wrote a stream of blank checks to their evil twins, the Repuks, in order to benefit from the inevitable political blowback of the Repuks' illegal privateer/imperial revenge-conquest. Both parties of the elites deserve the same fate. And we're helping them along, toward that fate, through our Occupy movement. The Occupy protesters have taken a different tack. Different than liberalism. Liberalism isn't getting support, rather support is being diverted away from that philosophy - and it's no surprise. The philosophy that is growing today, the philosophy of the future, puts liberals and conservatives together where they belong, on the far right, the political platform of class hierarchy, and puts the people together on the far-left, the political platform of universal equity/justice. Enlightenment is a right, not a privilege. The people may reach enlightenment sooner by comparing Eastern philosophy with Western philosophy directly, for example, going to the bookstore and opening to the table of contents a book on Buddhism and a book of western organized religions. The book on Buddhism will list topics there related to the enlightenment and empowerment of the individual's body/mind/spirit. The other book will list topics related to the people's subjugation to mythical deities in the sky. I hope you can make a connection between those two poles and the two poles of the political spectrum just described. The far-left is the pole of individual enlightenment and empowerment. Universal solidarity/equity/justice. Let's go there.
Nothing new here at all.
John Stuart Mill made it clear in 1866, when he explained a previous remark:
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
This isn’t new. In "Black Children, White Children: Competence, Socialization and Social Structure" (1981) Zena Smith Blau showed that when mothers belonging to fundamentalist authoritarian religious sects imposed strict rules and controlled their children's thoughts and activities, the children's IQs went down.
...which raises the question of whether rigid authoritarian control of thinking and reasoning is cause or effect:
Are they right-wingers because they are dumb, or are they dumb because they’ve been conditioned by right-wing authoritarians?
Very astute question Caroline! I may just have to research that at some point.
Thanks
You might want to look at a column of mine on CommonDreams.org August 27, 2006:
EDUCATION 101 http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0827-26.htm
"Are they right-wingers because they are dumb, or are they dumb because they’ve been conditioned by right-wing authoritarians?"
Yes!
..
"Are they right-wingers because they are dumb, or are they dumb because they’ve been conditioned by right-wing authoritarians?"
That is the question this study (which is based on low IQ and conservatism as a variable) is trying to answer.
IQ level testing it's self is somewhat biased and not completely accurate.but it does demonstrate a deficit by that standard.
"That is the question this study (which is based on low IQ and conservatism as a variable) is trying to answer."
Maybe, but based on the abstract, it just seems to correlate intelligence measured in childhood (through IQ) with adulthood racism, but as far as I can see, they can still have a common cause, in practices of family upbringing maybe? Maybe it's about something that makes kids both dumb and racist at the same time? No idea, I'm not a scientist, but it would be nice to be able to read the article. And frankly, I do not like the approach of the article itself, "if you disagree with me it's because you're STUPID" is how it all looks like to me: "A new study finds that children with low intelligence grow into Tea Party-ish adults who hold socially conservative views and would like black, gay and other troublesome types to just go away, please." Really stupid demagogic oversimplification of the issue imo.
Yes it is a challenge to find an objective measurement of racism without bias. I think you can identify correlations (some are very obvious) but it doesn't explain how it is applied across IQ levels. Like the Bell Curve argument that black people have inferior intelligence for instance. When IQ testing isn't a reliable test for intelligence (which is based general standards) there are other tests of adaptive behavior that are considered. Really low intelligence or low rates of behavior are difficult to measure. All are a classification system and sometimes not accurate or only accurate within a social context. What if two-thirds of the participants were deaf. Yep, reading the study would help answer some of these questions.
If we lefties are so fucking intelligent, we should be able to read and interpret the study for ourselves :-/ For some reason I absolutely dislike any argument that "scientifically" "proves" that my opponents are just dumb. I prefer to decide that on a case-by-case basis in actual dialog. Also, maybe I'm a snob, but I don't really consider livescience posts (without the supporting data) worthy of use in any argument, only the original stuff counts. I also absolutely dislike the current oversimplified and commercialised popular science literature in its entirety.
These people make good cops.
Open displays of racism / bigotry reveal that someone is suffering greatly and needs someone to listen to the stories of their lives and the seemingly impossible predicaments they're faced with. Since they don't yet trust someone different than themselves, it must be someone of the same kind who listens (with limits) and helps them to begin to trust that life does not have to be so cruel and impossible anymore. (Many of these people have had very tough beginnings...) Once they have located the true source of the pain and feel that they have been seen and heard, they can begin to take responsibility, re-envision a different way, and make amends.
Very insightful esabi. I saw this with several bigoted white people, one a sanitation man, when MLK started working on the garbage strike in Memphis. They heard his words, saw that he was on their side and they melted toward him. Not everything is intellectualized. The way people feel about their place in the world has a tremendous influence. I do not think calling them stupid is especially helpful.
I agree. They may be dumb, like an ox, but also dangerous, like an angry ox. Ridiculing their attempts to ridicule us is simply more divisiveness that plays into the hands of the ruling class. Yes, esabi, I believe that listening and compassion will do more to win them over to our way of thinking than reflecting their ridicule.
NedB: listening to people without ridicule is the best way to open channels of communications. Rather than closing down more open discussions and confirming the beliefs they have had instilled by 'leaders,' those who are used to authoritarian rule have avenues with which to possibly question their beliefs at some point in the future.
Orrrr, don't get into a pissing contest with a skunk..!
Does this mean that liberals that lose intellectual functioning will become right-wing conservatives?
I don't believe that only right wingers are stupid and the proof can be found in the overwhelming support that the American public gives to religion and racist wars against the third world both of which cut across party lines. It is much more accurate to say that the American people are stupid.
Thalidomide said, "the overwhelming support that the American public gives to religion and racist wars against the third world both of which cut across party lines"
Thalidomide, you are badly misinformed.
Polls consistently show OPPOSITION to the racist wars, and that opposition is highest among Democrats, lowest among republicans, with independents falling in between..
Here's a Nov 11 CBS poll:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27633
begin quote
CBS News Poll at a glance:
Three-quarters of Americans support US withdrawal from Iraq.
Two-thirds of Americans believe the Iraq War was not worth fighting.
Half of Americans oppose US involvement in Libya.
More than half of Americans want to end the war in Afghanistan.
Seventy per cent of Americans do not support military intervention to change dictatorships into democracies.
41% of Americans say that Israel is an ally.
37% of Americans say that Israel is 'not an ally,' and 12% say Israel is 'unfriendly' or 'an enemy.'
55% of Americans say Iran can be contained via diplomacy.
Only 15% of Americans support military intervention in Iran.
close quote
There are many more polls that demonstrate this fact. Also, massive demonstrations occurred in 2003 against the Bush war plans
The American people are not stupid. Are you?
US masses are unorganized. This is accounts for most of our powerlessness.
Bigotry is also the province of the intellectually lazy, and goes hand-in-hand with stupidity.
I'll bet we could also prove that pigs make better voters than people. Just define "intelligence."
Intelligence = the ability to adapt to change...
Intelligence = the ability to understand that simple definitions of intelligence are inherently absurd.
I don't think that the mind contemplating itself can create accurate definitions of fundemental psychological concepts. Of course that previous entence sets up something akin to the liars paradox.
Actually I don't think it does, exactly because you say "contemplating itself". What you said imo reflects one of the deepet, most interesting and inspiring scientific developments of the 20th century (the development of logic, especially theory of computation).
Sorry, I'm not following your line of reasoning?
Hehehe you asked for it! (And you'll get it even if you didn't.) Here's the rant:
I just replied to your last sentence about the liars paradox and that the sentence you referred to ("I don't think that the mind contemplating itself can create accurate definitions of fundemental psychological concepts.") is pretty much spot on and would not lead to it.
The liar's paradox question connects closely to Gödel's theories of incompleteness. Basically, Gödel's incompleteness theorems separate logic from mathematics: they say that no axiomatic system (that can list all of its theorems using an algorithm) can cover arithmetic in its entirety - basically, there is always something that is either true or not *beyond* the axioms - any set of axioms. And that's just arithmetic of course - almost everything else in science is at least as complex.
Of course this is a very fuzzy and inaccurate interpretation, maybe better to call it a metaphor, but I think it means this: logic (what we can know through introspection) is not enough to describe all the aspects of the real world that is outside us. Logic itself can not contain even mathematics, let alone the rest of the world. You need to add information based on external observations for that, maybe in the form of an axiom - BUT there are always more axioms to add, ie. more observations to be made and more to learn from the outside world. (The most famous example being Euclid's fifth postulate and the alternative geometries derived by Bólyai, Lobachevsky and Riemann from its variations: basically, the fifth axiom is logically equivalent to Pythagoras' theorem and alternatives are possible - but to know *which* of the different geometries describes the real world the most accurately, you need to basically experiment and measure, ie. *look at the outside world* to see if a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is true.) I think what you said can be interpreted in this way (or at least it's a good parallel imo). While mathematics doesn't directly follow from logic, Gödel's theorems do, and what you said is basically in some way an intuitive parallel to those imo.
(I will always have a soft spot for Frege's Appendix to the second volume of his Grundgesetze der Arithmetik. What happened was that he basically *did* build up a purely logic based theory of mathematics in this book but he got a letter from Bertrand Russell that explained the Russell paradox which basically showed that a very important part of Frege's theory simply didn't work. What he did was he wrote the appendix (because the book was already in print) in which he explained that some of his work's basic propositions were wrong. Reading these words in the book (well I read it in Hungarian, so not exactly) was pretty cool (I'd known nothing of this before and just finished the book (which was just a selection of Frege's writings)): "Hardly anything more unfortunate can befall a scientific writer than to have one of the foundations of his edifice shaken after the work is finished. This was the position I was placed in by a letter of Mr. Bertrand Russell, just when the printing of this volume was nearing its completion." In fact they were not shaken but destroyed, but that doesn't mean he wasn't the most important logician since Aristotle (and that's no small feat, just read the Analytics...those are fucking incredible, I think they're some of the greatest and most unique achievements of Western civilisation - a lot of people didn't even understand them, let alone add anything to them *for two thousand years*). I find this episode pretty inspiring and that was only the start.)
The development of logic later branched off into computation theory, with a number of very nice theorems about computability (what types of problems can be solved and what can't, what it means to solve a problem etc). Some really interesting stuff here, and what's great about it is that a lot of it can stand alone and doesn't require too much previous knowledge to understand. Raymond Smullyan has some pretty awesome books on logic and Gödel's theorems, I highly recommend them. Gödel, Escher, Bach is a popular science book that is imo incredibly overrated but quite nice nonetheless and covers this topic somewhat (Smullyan is much better though, although his books are mostly exercises so they require a lot more attention and do not in any way stroke the reader's ego when they half-explain complex stuff like GEB does). Frege is quite readable imo and of course so is the awesome Russell (btw, the fact that Russell and Chomsky (whose work on formal languages is by now very closely connected to this area btw) are the two arch-villains in the Laroucheian conspiracy theory makes it the funniest of them all).
I think this is about more than just a specialised discipline though. There were loads of systems in history that were built up based on just looking inwards and ignoring reality. There is always, always a push towards creating "perfect" "logical" systems (I think this is the process that Max Weber identified as "rationalisation"). I think one of Marx' great contributions was to understand that this was a huge problem and providing the outlines of a method or a way of thinking to handle it.
Anyway, I think there is a pretty important truth behind Gödel's theorems: we can't know too much without experience - we have to look outside ourselves because we are not complete. Which is how I interpreted what you wrote (well I overgeneralised but still). Sorry for the long off-topic rant.
Thanks for that. I enjoyed reading it. Logical systems are fun!
I've studied Aristotle and Russell, in the context of a couple of logic classes long ago. Loved it. My old prof (in his late 70's) was great and really appreciated my enthusiasm and comprehension (at the undergraduate level)
I'll check out Goedell. I tried the GEB book but it was not my cup of tea.
Read a great graphic novel on Russel. It was actually a great sumary of the various debates and developments in logical theory, contemporaneous to Russell. Also dealt with how those systems formed the basis for information theory and computer science.
I agree that all logical systems and reality models are incomplete. The human mind, even minds in in collective scholarship, studying the human mind yield particularly incomplete results, and thus the study of the mind, by the mind is particularly fraught with paradox. Perhaps a particularly telling example of Goedel's thinking, but let me look into this a bit before I jump to conclusions.
I would also be interested in an elaboration of your salutory comment regarding Marx.
Regarding the Marx comment, sorry about that, it's really more like a hunch, or at best a half-formed thought. I just always felt that my old "mechanical materialism" was not in fact a very good approach to complex real-world questions. I also always had a problem with a few oversimplifications, things that Marxists often called "formal logic" or "metaphysics". But this is something I'm still thinking about, tbh :-) There is one book that I think explains quite a few things to an extent, even though it is not really written as general philosophy, and that is "Poverty of Theory" by E. P. Thompson (and it's worth reading anyway, just like most things written by Thompson).
Generally speaking right-wingers think in binary. Everything is viewed through a good-evil, black-white filter and any nuance is blinkered out.
Thus you have statements that fit the False Dilemma Fallacy, also known as Appeal to Ignorance, e.g. "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists" a variation of the "If you are not for us you are against us" genre.
While this obviously works for the unintelligent right-wingers there are some smart right-wingers that would make you think that they must be at least aware of the other options -that you could be against both or some nuanced and qualified version of either or both. So are these smart right-wingers lying to everyone, including themselves or is it only the emotional part of their brain that is binary blinkered thus still allowing nuanced results from just the analytical parts of the brain?
Does anyone have thoughts/agreement/disagreement on this?
American! Go native. Be indigenous.
The good vs evil narrative crosses all political lines. How many times have you seen liberals label racists as evil? Or capitalists as evil? or George Bush as evil? But really it's culture and upbringing that makes people the way they are. There is no good and no evil. Evil only exists because we think it and it's only something other people do.
Condemnation achieves nothing. It's just self-aggrandizing bullshit. If we really wanted to end racism we would try to understand racist people and where they are coming from. Not demonize them by calling them stupid. What the fuck does that do? How is that going to end racism?
I will agree with you that extremes of left-wing are also binary brains as too with any extreme ideology -most don't do 'nuance'.
But the statistical incidence of right-wing binary blinkers is too prevalent, their numbers in the population too high a percentage and too well correlated to ignore. More moderate types tend to think more, have superior critical and analytical thinking and have a greater capacity for empathy.
Sure we all make impatient over-simplified rants from time to time -often for stress relief - but on reflection and when we think about it in depth we are frequently aware and humbled by the gross simplification of complex issues. I am unaware of a right-wing inclination or even capapcity to do that.
There are many highly educated and thoughtful people who are right wing in their views.
Issues are not always so complex. The fact that the rich screw the poor is not rocket science, although they may use clever means to accomplish that.
Moderation often leads to paralysis. "On one hand, on the other" can be an excuse to avoid action.
I'm against the exploitation of the poor by the rich. I'm for democracy and against plutocracy. Does that make me a "binary" thinker?
Bigots are as complex as anyone else. They too have conflicting feelings and self doubt. They too have fears and worries.I disagree with their way of trying to resolve these problems, and think it's dangerous. But I don't feel superior to them.
.
You are right - no demonization of racists, homophobes, anti-abortionists, religious nuts, etc. as they are simply ignorants and simpletons. Education is the key, as well as an open mind.
As soon as people are herded into camps by income, racial or ethnical identity, religious or sexual beliefs, we are creating "others". Different from us, something to be wary of.
Discussions are needed, to understand each other's points of view.
As you point out, exceptionalism is an easy trap to fall into and one which is difficult to see out of once one is embedded firmly. Being non-judgmental is difficult when seeing and assessing other cultures/ideas/groups for the first time especially if you are a vertical thinker rather than horizontal. Everyone resists change to some degree and nobody likes their comfort zone and beliefs to be shaken.
Even then there are cultural traits or religious beliefs that are less than total convictions but more used to differentiate one group from another -perhaps another level of exceptionalism. It's a complex world.
If reactionaries and bigots are so stupid, how come they are so powerful? How come so many of them are rich?
It should be possible to disagree, even disagree passionately, without indulging in abuse.
Divisions and disagreements are normal. Conflict is normal. The trick is to avoid becoming violent about these normal parts of life. Using terms like "ignorant simpletons" is a form of verbal violence and it hurts. Progressives -- everyone -- should avoid that kind of talk.
As most people think parochially, their definitions of evil is terrorist, but in any case someone "different" from anyone in their immediate milieu. Of course, it is hard to blame a poor prole, who works long hours, commutes for long distances through endless traffic and flicks on the tele at home for entertainment. He is looking to put the blame on someone for his misery and his boring and hopeless little life. Just a fact of life, that these people are going to blame the people/groups that he hears the worst things about. Methinks, nowadays it's the Muslims/Arabs, having replaced the Commies/Soviets/Vietnamese/Latinos/sundry enemy de jour.
There is still a narrow middle class of professionals and intellectuals, who are trying to do their best, but the proles don't listen, the right wingers, the privileged classes and the have nothings just don't listen.
As for the right wingers: they just play the "divide et impera" card, sit back and enjoy the show. Or maybe just couldn't care about the rest of us.
The "proles"? You must mean the working class. Like the people in Wisconsin who have been showing the rest of America how to fight back against oppression.
If the "middle class professionals and intellectuals" are unable to figure out how to link up with the working people, is that the fault of the working people? Maybe the working people would rather not line up behind their "intellectual superiors" and take direction from them. After all, the professionals and intellectuals have done little to prove that they give a damn about the working class.