01/27/2012 Population structure using haplotype
data È
Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably)
[ Note: This page is from the cache feature
in google. Use this when the original source is missing. No guarantee of
accuracy though. Caveat lector. ]
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:jYTIeVwfYA8J:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/social-conservatives-have-a-lower-i-q-probably/%2Bhttp://discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/01/social-conservatives-have-a-lower-i-q-probably/&sei=nj4-UKT7HoTW6wHXjoDYBQ&gbv=2&ct=clnk ]
In light of my previous posts on GRE scores and
educational interests (by the way, Education Realist points out that the low
GRE verbal scores are only marginally affected by international students) I was
amused to see this write-up at LiveScience, Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs
Linked to Prejudice. Naturally over at Jezebel there is a respectful treatment
of this research. This is rather like the fact that people who would otherwise
be skeptical of the predictive power of I.Q. tests become convinced of their
precision of measurement when it comes to assessing whether a criminal facing
the death penalty is mentally retarded or not! (also see this thread over at
DailyKos). You can see some of the conservative response too.
The paper itself is Bright Minds and Dark
Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through
Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup
Despite their important implications for
interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely
ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models
in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated
through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism,
right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an
analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets
(N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood
predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via
conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a
predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on anti-homosexual
prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low
levels of inter-group contact. All analyses controlled for education and
socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a
critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we
recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and
a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models. I emphasized sections that I assume
will answer some immediate questions, as not everyone has access to
Psychological Science. Yes, they used different types of intelligence tests;
verbal and spatial. Yes, they corrected for socioeconomic background. Their
replication was in the UK and USA. Importantly, they focused on a few
characteristics, attitudes toward homosexuals and race. It doesnÕt seem like
they explored an enormous range of opinions. And as noted in the paper they
were looking at the social dimension of political ideology.
There is plenty of work on cognitive styles and political
orientation. Recently it is moral foundations from Jon Haidt. Earlier you had
George LakoffÕs models. Neither of these focused on general intelligence, the
raw CPU power of the mind. Rather they surveyed moral intuition and personality
profiles (for example, there is some evidence that those with a greater bias
toward ÒopennessÓ are more socially liberal).
Looking at the General Social Survey I too have
found at a correlation between higher intelligence and social liberalism. On
the other hand a good objection to this is that my estimator of intelligence,
WORDSUM, was verbal, and liberals and conservatives may exhibit different
cognitive profiles. This study takes that into account, adding spatial I.Q.
tests to the mix.
It is important to emphasize that the authors
do not posit an independent direct causal connection between low I.Q. and more
reactionary attitudes towards race and homosexuality. Rather, they start out
with a model where low cognitive ability people are drawn (or remain in) to
conservative orientation, and this is further correlated with these specific
racial and sexual attitudes. Like almost all psychology you canÕt get the
causation airtight (if you are a hardcore Humean [from David Hume ] you could
probably say this for everything), but the correlation is suggestive in light
of political and psychological models. The problem is the second. As Jonathan
Haidth has articulated most recently most academic political scientists and
psychologists have strongly social liberal views, and so they consciously or
unconsciously tend to caricature and misrepresent the views of half their study
population (notice that the authors assume that these socially conservative
positions are ÔDark AttitudesÕ; most people today would agree, but shouldnÕt
intellectuals avoid this sort of thing?). So though I have some confidence in
the correlations, IÕm a lot more skeptical of the explanatory models (though I
donÕt reject them out of had). There are so many models sitting around that how
you chose models can be shaped by bias rather easily.
First, letÕs hit the results. The table above represents the results
for the British cohorts and race, and the diagram to the left illustrates the
outcome for the American sample and homosexuality. The primary point is that as
per their hypothesis the effect of lower cognitive ability on prejudice toward
other races and homosexuality is mediated more or less through ideology. Coarsely,
stupid people arenÕt racist, stupid people are more likely to be socially
conservative, and more socially conservative people are more likely to be
racist. How these join together though is something one can subject to more
critical examination. The authors allude to this when they note that there is a
finding that those who know people of other races tend to be less prejudiced,
with the inference being that contact makes one less racist. But this is not an
established causality. Rather, it could be that people with less prejudiced
tendencies put themselves into situations where they are likely to meet other
races. This tendency could be correlated with higher I.Q. through a mediation
of a Òcosmopolitanism index.Ó Who knows? There are many stories one could tell.
I do want to emphasize though that this is a
coarse measure of Ôconservatism.Õ In the early to mid aughts Paul Wolfowitz was
a hated figure on the American political Left because of his critical role in
buttressing the intellectual armamentarium favoring the invasion of Iraq. But
it is well known that Wolfowitz was and is a social liberal, like a subset of
neoconservatives who focus on foreign policy. On the above measure Wolfowitz,
who has undergraduate degrees in mathematics and chemistry from Cornell and a
graduate degree in political science from University of Chicago, would come out
as a high I.Q. social liberal. Is that right? As far as it goes it is right,
but on some level the results would be misleading in the more complex terrain
of coalitional politics. A substantial number of Americans shake out as social
conservatives and fiscal moderates/liberals. And yet this faction is totally
unrepresented in modern politics. In contrast, their inverse, libertarians, do
have some representation, albeit a marginalized one. Why? Because the latter
position has modest high I.Q./elite support, while the former position has far
less. If you changed the question to attitudes toward global free trade there
would be a correlation between lower I.Q. and the Ômore liberalÕ (at last in
American politics) position.
This qualification also dovetails with the
broader point about styles of cognitive thinking, and reliance on traditional
norms as opposed to think a priori. Ironically it makes intuitive sense that
higher I.Q. people would be less reliant on intuition, impulse, and collective
wisdom. But there are limits to this. For example, see the reaction to the
proposition of sex between consenting adults who happen to be siblings on an
atheism forum (assume they use birth control). But some moral philosophers
posit that this is not harmful or immoral, and should be socially accepted.
ItÕs an interesting illustration of the boundary condition of the power of
disgust and emotion, as only the hyper-rational feel comfortable even
entertaining the moral legitimacy of this proposition. More relevantly,
educated liberals also make use of ÔstereotypesÕ constantly. ItÕs just that
those stereotypes are of conservatives. I know this because almost all my friends
are educated liberals, and they often forget that IÕm a conservative. So I hear
a lot about conservatives are this and that without qualification, to great
merriment and laughter (also, conservatives are genuinely evil and malevolent
apparently!). The tendency toward generalization doesnÕt bother me in an of
itself, rather, IÕm focused on whether the proposition is true. But the
hypocrisy gets tiresome sometimes, as people will fluidly switch from a
cognitive style which accepts generalization to one which rejects it. A
stereotype is often a generalization whose robustness you donÕt want to accept.
Negative generalities need context when theyÕre unpalatable, but no
qualification is necessary when their truth is congenial. Sometimes this veers
into moderately politically incorrect territory. I was once an observer on a
conversation between liberal white academics who were mulling over the
unfortunate reality that their Asian American students were far more likely to
cheat to obtain better grades. I suspect that this is actually true for various
reasons. But I also suspect that these academics forgot that I was privy to the
conversation, and wouldnÕt have aired this truth in a more racially diverse
social context.
More broadly what is the takeaway from this sort
of research? Should we conclude that because the more intelligent tend to be
socially liberal that socially liberal propositions are true? I think one should be
skeptical of this position. There are two immediate rejoinders. First,
politics is a matter of values. The reliance of reason vs. emotion, individual
ratiocination vs. historical or social wisdom, may vary. But that does not
speak to the truth of any given value judgment, as those judgments are embedded
in a system of norms, as well as individual self-interest (e.g., the higher
I.Q. tendency to favorable attitudes toward free trade may have less to do with
an understanding of comparative advantage, than an implicit understanding that
globalization favors them as opposed to less intelligent lower classes). Second, the moral arc
of history is not always unidirectional. The ÔprogressiveÕ position is
sometimes reversed. In Better for All the World there is a broad history of the
rise of a consensus among economic and intellectual elites about the wisdom of
coercive eugenics as an instrument of progressive social engineering in the
late 19th century. Religious conservatives, whether evangelical Protestant or
Roman Catholic, were two of the greatest bulwarks against this force for
progress. Arguably these two elements were more efficacious in resisting the
spread of eugenics legislation than the Left critics, judging by the outcomes
Southern Europe and the American South, as opposed to the more Ôforward
thinkingÕ nation-states of Northern Europe and the American North. This fact is
unknown to most of my friends and acquaintances, judging by repeated
assumptions that any utilization of personal genomics for eugenic purposes will
occur first in politically conservative jurisdictions.
With all these qualifications, I believe this
sort of research is essential and insightful. We need to understand the
patterns of cognitive variation, whether it be intelligence or personality,
which may result in differences of opinion. At the end of the day no opinions
may change, but one may be able to construct a crisper argument when taking
into account the genuine roots of oneÕs political opponents viewpoints, rather
than your own ill-informed caricature.
Addendum: I did not address the issue of revealed vs. avowed preferences
and attitudes. But I think that this difference will not change the sign of
correlation. For example, for various reasons I assume that the gap between
white liberals and white conservatives when it comes to race is smaller in
terms of the preference revealed in their choices, rather than the survey
responses they give, but I donÕt think it reverses the rank order of the
correlation. Citation: Bright Minds and Dark
Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through
Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact, Psychol Sci. 2012 Jan 5.