🐱 Conservative people tend to be less intelligent — according to science

CatParty


Over the past decade, several studies have shown that people who tend to hold more conservative views score low on measures of intelligence. However, it now appearsthat while conservatism and intelligence are negatively correlated, the link is not as strong as first thought.

Origins
Much of the previous work in this area was based on a psychological definition of conservatism, rather than a political one. The term “conservative syndrome” was coined to describe a person who attaches particular importance to respect for tradition, humility, devoutness and moderation.




Such a person tends to hold conformist values like obedience, self-discipline and politeness, and emphasises the need for social order coupled with concerns for family and national security.


A conservative person also subscribes to conventional religious beliefs and has a sense of belonging to and pride in a group with which they identify. The same person is likely to be less open to intellectual challenges and will be seen as a responsible “good citizen” at work and in society, while expressing rather harsh views toward those outside their group.




Up to 16% of “conservative syndrome” is reportedly due to low cognitive ability.

Overall, smart people tend to be socially liberal in their outlook. It was also foundthat countries whose citizens score low on international tests of mathematics achievement tend to be more conservative in their political outlooks and policies.

Politics versus psychology
Political scientists were quick to point outthat conservative syndrome belongs to what they refer to as social conservatism.




Many members of conservative political parties, both in the US and in Australia, undoubtedly subscribe to the values captured by the syndrome. But there is also a distinct group of conservative voters who do not feel strongly about such views. These are the people who are sometimes labelled as economic liberals.

Economic liberals’ beliefs are based on the idea that individuals should be free to engage in voluntary transactions with others and to enjoy the fruits of their own labour. The typical leftist socialist position is opposed to such a view.

It was pointed out that economic liberals as a group tend to be better educated than the rest of, say, Republican Party voters and sympathisers in the US. Therefore, the correlation between intelligence and political behaviour may be essentially zero or even slightly positive.




In other words, intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal views.

Psychological world atlas
Several recently reported cross-cultural studies show the correlation between social conservatism and intelligence is lower than previously thought.




In that work, psychological scales for the assessment of conservatism syndrome were given to people from 33 countries from around the world.

It was reported there are essentially three “psychological continents” in the world today. Liberal countries are those from (mostly Western) Europe, and Australia and Canada. Conservative countries are those from Southeast and South Asia, Africa and South America.

All other countries – including the US, Russia and those from Confucian Asia – are somewhere in the middle.


Conservative countries have a low average IQ
The participants in these studies were also given a short non-verbal test of intelligence. As expected, conservative, below-the-equator countries had the lowest average score.

However, people from the middle range of countries had slightly higher IQ scores than those from the liberal countries. This implies that negative correlation between IQ and conservatism is not as strong as previously reported.

A reason for this finding is the standing of the middle group of countries on IQ tests. For example, East Asian countries that are not very liberal or conservative tend to have high IQ and academic achievement scores.

Another reason may be the use of a non-verbal test of intelligence. Most previous studies were based on verbal IQ tests, which are known to be influenced by the level of education.




This finding at the level of countries has been compared to the correlation at the individual level. Our new ‘in press’ data indicate social conservatism and intelligence do have a negative correlation with each other but only 5%, not 16%, of conservatism can be accounted for by the intelligence test scores.

So, are conservatives less smart?
Yes, slightly less if they are social conservatives.

On the available evidence, the presence of people subscribing to economic liberalism within the ostensibly conservative parties in the US, UK and Australia makes it very unlikely that a substantial correlation – either positive or negative – will be found between political conservatism and intelligence.

Members of the left-wing political parties in these countries are not immune from social conservatism either. So, our politicians have no right to call members of the other party “stupid”.
The Conversation
 
This is bullshit, but counterpoint: High IQ doesn't always mean you're right. A lot of libs have high IQs that let them rationalize deeply stupid and destructive things. One of the smartest guys I know, who I will freely admit most likely has a higher IQ than me (he works in a very complex technical field I couldn't fathom), thinks trans rights are human rights and Greta Thunberg is our last hope.

This study is literally just saying that Africans have lower IQs then whites and asians.

Good job wokies. You did a racism again.

This is true though lol. Do you think it isn't? Why? If so, please have higher standards than the people who wrote the article and back up your point with evidence, instead of going for the lazy "durrr libs r real rayciss" take.
 
A far more robust and relevant correlation exists between liberal beliefs and depression and severe mental health problems like psychopathy. This correlation persists even when controlling for many variables such as education, socioeconomic status, employment, marriage status and religiosity, but these findings are published quietly and rarely spoken about. The media gives essentially no press to this and instead runs the STUDIES SHOW RIGHT WING PEOPLE R DUM "story" every other week. Or otherwise the cope is, "Republicans are much more mentally unwell than Democrats, its just that Democrats are so enlightened and euphoric in their own staggering intellects that they smartly seek mental health services more often."

Sure.
 
Last edited:
Godspeed, @CatParty on this article!


But yeah, the whole reasons articles like this one exist and why the bearded eggs and dangerhair crowd all "fucking love science" is entirely because of the traditionalists shitting the bed so badly that the Left still thinks it's 2004 and their political opponents are entirely comprised of neocons and Protestant traditionalists who are convinced that the Earth is 6000 years old.

The Religious Right is dead and we are richer for having lost them, times have changed a lot since then and now even the goddamn GOP is slowly realizing this.

Even the traditionalist faggot Zoomer edgelords of today are mostly Catholics (or LARP as such) because they know that one of the biggest reasons why the Left had a field day with killing off conservatism in the 2000's was because of the Evangelicals and Chick Tract-tier bullshit like Young Earth Creationism

If you're convinced all conservatives are just Protestant slack jawed yokels and have some weird Bob Chipman-esque view of anyone not sufficiently woke enough, of course you're going to go do flawed research and misinterpret statistics.

That's obvious, if conservatives weren't less intelligent then society wouldn't always be marching towards progress.

I think we found MovieBob's KF account....

A bit of an aside, but I always like how far-left quislings such as yourself genuinely believe in the concept of Whig History, despite the fact it's very much a product of Victorian era colonialism and from the same general outlook that gave us actual scientific white supremacy.
 
That's obvious, if conservatives weren't less intelligent then society wouldn't always be marching towards progress.

Nah its about morality, We are too moral, too kind, too gentle, This why Civil War is neccesary. THE BEACONS OF CONSERVATISM MUST BE LIT AND THE MILITIAS MUST ANSWER.
 
That's obvious, if conservatives weren't less intelligent then society wouldn't always be marching towards progress.
"Progress" is a meaningless word with no defined end goals, no benchmarks, and no way to challenge except in hindsight.

Prohibition was progressive in 1920, now safe injection sites (essentially government sponsored opium dens) are progressive.

In the 90's, saying being gay didn't make you less manly or being a lesbian didn't automatically make you a butch biker were progressive ideas. Now saying all gays are unhatched trannies is woke, and any gay who disagrees has internalized self-hatred.

"No means no" is now passé; you don't want to be a TERF bitch, do you?

Hiring the best person without regards to race or gender, a major goal of the civil rights movement, is now soft bigotry.

#Believeallwomen went from righteous to rightwing gaslighting in less than 4 years.

In 2008, it was a major leftwing talking point how old McCain was (72 in 2008); now questioning Biden (77 right now) is alt-right.

You tell me what idea you think is progressive, and in 10 years, the reactionary opposition will be the new progressives.

Honk Honk
 
"Progress" is a meaningless word with no defined end goals, no benchmarks, and no way to challenge except in hindsight.

Prohibition was progressive in 1920, now safe injection sites (essentially government sponsored opium dens) are progressive.

In the 90's, saying being gay didn't make you less manly or being a lesbian didn't automatically make you a butch biker were progressive ideas. Now saying all gays are unhatched trannies is woke, and any gay who disagrees has internalized self-hatred.

"No means no" is now passé; you don't want to be a TERF bitch, do you?

Hiring the best person without regards to race or gender, a major goal of the civil rights movement, is now soft bigotry.

#Believeallwomen went from righteous to rightwing gaslighting in less than 4 years.

In 2008, it was a major leftwing talking point how old McCain was (72 in 2008); now questioning Biden (77 right now) is alt-right.

You tell me what idea you think is progressive, and in 10 years, the reactionary opposition will be the new progressives.

Honk Honk
If your main goal is simply eroding structures, institutions, and the fundamental organization of society wherever you can and you're willing to play wherever the ball is rolling, even completely reversing positions on specific issues to achieve this goal, it's easy to keep scoring victories. It's the easiest political path there is. If you really want to get a measure of leftist "progress" look at what happens in every instance when it's time to put up and actually build something to replace what they're tearing down.

The leftist concept of "progress" can very easily be re-framed as "destruction" and every civilization that has followed this path without restraint collapsed in a way that was horrific for the people living there for the final decades leading up to the collapse. There's a turn of phrase people use to describe this. Something about strong men, good times, weak men, and bad times. When the pieces are picked up afterwards, the new society that rises from the ashes is almost always "right wing extremist" in most ways compared to what the previous society was like during its downfall.

For example, which do you think was more socially and economically liberal, Rome or Medieval Europe? Which do you think was more tolerant towards homosexuals? This even applies to Tzarist vs Stalinist Russia in many areas. Certainly Stalinism's triumph over other strains of communism represented a drastic shift rightward in many areas. "Leftists" in Russia went from trying to abolish the traditional family to declaring homosexuality to be aligned with fascism.
 
If your main goal is simply eroding structures, institutions, and the fundamental organization of society wherever you can and you're willing to play wherever the ball is rolling, even completely reversing positions on specific issues to achieve this goal, it's easy to keep scoring victories. It's the easiest political path there is. If you really want to get a measure of leftist "progress" look at what happens in every instance when it's time to put up and actually build something to replace what they're tearing down.

The leftist concept of "progress" can very easily be re-framed as "destruction" and every civilization that has followed this path without restraint collapsed in a way that was horrific for the people living there for the final decades leading up to the collapse. There's a turn of phrase people use to describe this. Something about strong men, good times, weak men, and bad times. When the pieces are picked up afterwards, the new society that rises from the ashes is almost always "right wing extremist" in most ways compared to what the previous society was like during its downfall.

For example, which do you think was more socially and economically liberal, Rome or Medieval Europe? Which do you think was more tolerant towards homosexuals? This even applies to Tzarist vs Stalinist Russia in many areas. Certainly Stalinism's triumph over other strains of communism represented a drastic shift rightward in many areas. "Leftists" in Russia went from trying to abolish the traditional family to declaring homosexuality to be aligned with fascism.
They did add some things, like public education and overtime pay. It's like their progress it is to build very high and narrow, cutting out every "inconvenient" block near the bottom, until some shock causes it to teeter over.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Honest Coyote
They did add some things, like public education and overtime pay. It's like their progress it is to build very high and narrow, cutting out every "inconvenient" block near the bottom, until some shock causes it to teeter over.
:thinking:
There was actually an anthropologist who proposed a theory similar to that. Interesting that you see it like that.

 
Godspeed, @CatParty on this article!


But yeah, the whole reasons articles like this one exist and why the bearded eggs and dangerhair crowd all "fucking love science" is entirely because of the traditionalists shitting the bed so badly that the Left still thinks it's 2004 and their political opponents are entirely comprised of neocons and Protestant traditionalists who are convinced that the Earth is 6000 years old.

The Religious Right is dead and we are richer for having lost them, times have changed a lot since then and now even the goddamn GOP is slowly realizing this.

Even the traditionalist faggot Zoomer edgelords of today are mostly Catholics (or LARP as such) because they know that one of the biggest reasons why the Left had a field day with killing off conservatism in the 2000's was because of the Evangelicals and Chick Tract-tier bullshit like Young Earth Creationism

If you're convinced all conservatives are just Protestant slack jawed yokels and have some weird Bob Chipman-esque view of anyone not sufficiently woke enough, of course you're going to go do flawed research and misinterpret statistics.



I think we found MovieBob's KF account....

A bit of an aside, but I always like how far-left quislings such as yourself genuinely believe in the concept of Whig History, despite the fact it's very much a product of Victorian era colonialism and from the same general outlook that gave us actual scientific white supremacy.

Yes, the religious right pretty much shit the bed at opposing cultural marxism. They lost the culture war and the GOP and society in general have moved left on social issues due to their failures.

But the average republican pol wasn’t a young earth creationist crank who thought Satan planted dino bones either. The GOPe/neocons were cynics about family values unless it was an election year (these are the same people who moved the GOP left). They manipulated the religious right for their own ends. You will more likely see the 2000s republican intelligentsia affirm BLM or trans rights (many have endorsed Biden already) than traditional Christian values.
 
Last edited:
  • Dumb
Reactions: Syaoran Li
I dunno who shat the bed worse on this, the Religious Right for being puppets for the neocons in the 90's and 2000's or the Woke Left who still think they're relevant and are getting played the exact same way by the neolibs in the 2010's and 2020's.

EDIT: Just thought about something. I'm wondering what could happen if the Woke Left really does end up imploding in on itself like the Religious Right once the neoliberals have no use for them anymore? Could we see them get used as strawmen like the fundies are now?

Back in the 80's and 90's when the Religious Right was in its ascendancy and began its alliance with the neocons that would ultimately destroy them politically, a lot of the propaganda from the Satanic Panic often invoked strawman caricatures of certain "New Left" and counterculture types from the 1970's like hippies, bikers, metalheads, New Agers, punks, and proto-goths in the wider propaganda of the Satanic Panic.

Now SJW's often screech about the fundies and neocons combined with strawman caricatures of atheistic libertarian neckbeard "chuds" in their rhetoric. I'd imagine if a backlash does get so bad that it kills the Woke Left and forces the neoliberals to drop all corporate support, we'll see a lot of corporate-backed "Based Right" media and rhetoric invoke similar strawman figures of bearded egg soyboys, neon-haired fat lesbian punk culture types, black supremacists, and sneering pretentious hipsters years after they all die out in the actual cultural landscape.

(Never mind the fact that the Left seems to have all the actual neckbeards like MovieBob, Jake Alley, Peter Bright, Dobson, and Vaush, but I chalk that up to projection...)
 
Last edited:
The problem is that traditionalist Christian morals are every bit as austere, tyrannical, outright unnatural, and fundamentally wrong as Cultural Marxism is. It's just wrong in a different way.

Evil begets evil, whether it be evil from the words of Marx and his followers like the Bolsheviks and Frankfurt School or the evil from the words of Yahweh and his followers like the Israelites or the Church Fathers (AKA the Frankfurt School of the Greco-Roman world)

The dominance of Abrahamic monotheism is the only reason why the horrors of atheism and Marxism even came about to begin with. Yahweh was the original Lenin, Jesus was the original Leon Trotsky, Heaven/New Jerusalem is the original Worker's Paradise, "degenerates" are the original "reactionaries", and Hell is the original Gulag.

Really, Marx just wanted to create an atheistic form of totalitarian morality that could be just as despotic as Judeo-Christian morality but had no afterlife or divinity. The communist hates Yahweh because he ain't Yahweh.

The fedora tippers were right about the god of the Bible being a sadistic evil tyrant, but they were wrong about literally everything else including the nonexistence of divinity. Traditionalist morality is just a way to trick you into making yourself suffer on Earth as well as in the afterlife since Yahweh will throw you in Hell to burn for all eternity anyway and probably likes it more if you followed his morals on Earth before death since you got to suffer more to no avail.

We will all burn forever no matter what because the creator is a despot who hates his own creations so why should we completely deny ourselves in this life for an afterlife that we're never going to get?

Traditionalism is just manipulative gaslighting and psychological abuse writ large.

You come from a Christian background, yes? Would you describe your parents, grandparents, etc. as miserable with a life akin to that of a Soviet gulag? My heavily Catholic ancestors were very happy people and my Polish grandparents credited their faith for getting them through hard times in the old country during communist rule.

If God hated us why would he send his son to save us, and encourage us to live an upright life? You are a son of the Christian west; your personal morality, whether you realize it or not, is probably largely informed in its sense of right/wrong by the 10 commandments, etc.
 
You come from a Christian background, yes? Would you describe your parents, grandparents, etc. as miserable with a life akin to that of a Soviet gulag? My heavily Catholic ancestors were very happy people and my Polish grandparents credited their faith for getting them through hard times in the old country during communist rule.

If God hated us why would he send his son to save us, and encourage us to live an upright life? You are a son of the Christian west; your personal morality, whether you realize it or not, is probably largely informed in its sense of right/wrong by the 10 commandments, etc.

See, the thing is that my parents and grandparents more or less really were miserable with their lives of abject poverty and blind puritan conformity. Granted, I grew up poor and Protestant as opposed to middle class and Catholic like you did, so that may have a role in why I made that post, which I've since edited to be a lot less autistically morose and more on topic.

I always figured the idea of salvation was merely a form of deception and abuse to manipulate us into suffering sort of like when cults do "love bombing".

Reading the Bible, I view it as the kikes trying to get the "degenerate" pagan goyim to engage in self-induced suffering like they did and then the rise of Christianity boomeranged on the Jews
 
Last edited:
See, the thing is that my parents and grandparents more or less really were miserable with their lives of abject poverty and blind puritan conformity. Granted, I grew up poor and Protestant as opposed to middle class and Catholic like you did, so that may have a role in why I made that post, which I've since edited to be a lot less autistically morose and more on topic.

I always figured the idea of salvation was merely a form of deception and abuse to manipulate us into suffering sort of like when cults do "love bombing".

Reading the Bible, I view it as the kikes trying to get the "degenerate" pagan goyim to engage in self-induced suffering like they did and then the rise of Christianity boomeranged on the Jews

My grandparents lived under extreme poverty. They didn’t draw the same conclusion you did.

If you’re gonna go full wignat on (((YAHWEH VOLCANO DEMON))) then fine, but make sure to not leave your drink unattended at Richard Spencer’s pool parties.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Syaoran Li
My grandparents lived under extreme poverty. They didn’t draw the same conclusion you did.

If you’re gonna go full wignat on YAHWEH VOLCANO DEMON then fine, but make sure to not leave your drink unattended at Richard Spencer’s pool parties.

Neither did my grandparents. They're still devout in their beliefs to this day. I drew conclusions by observing them along with my parents and the area I grew up in, as well as reading the Bible and comparing it to other events in history. Maybe my conclusions are wrong, who the fuck knows?

But while I'm a liberal, I'm definitely not an atheist. I hate on the fedora crowd even more than I do the traditionalists since at least the Catholics brought some good to the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terrorist
Imagine the lack of self awareness these idiots must have to literally use the same logic the stormfront idiots use to call black people idiots, to claim the same nonsense about conservatives and being too stupid to realize it

Just point that fact out to them and watch them lose their shit trying to rationalize why its good when they do it
 
Back