[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.htmllink[/url

Apologies for linking to the [iDaily Wail[/i but as Dally had inexplicably missed this [iWail[/i story, I thought it best to bring to people's attention.


For balance, here's a random selection from the comments following the online article

Is it April 1st already? Surely that article is saying Wail readers aren't as intelligent as they think

or to put it another way pss.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... l.pdf+html Quote Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes : Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-WingIdeology and Low Intergroup Contact'"

or to put it another way pss.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... l.pdf+html Quote Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes : Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-WingIdeology and Low Intergroup Contact'"

I think that might be my favourite bit.

It's all a bit sweeping isn't it?
I mean, not all right wingers are stupid, most are just selfish or scared.

Hardly surprising news for regular visitors to the Sin Bin. You can see the findings of this study played out on here every day of the week.

Stupid, selfish, scared, and the vast majority are w@nkers!

Does this apply to Rugby League as well?

Let's think about it........

I saw a link to this on Facebook (other social networking sites are apparently available) earlier, and my first reaction was "why the feck did the eitor not bin that story?"
Surely alienating your own readership isn't particularly intelligent?

Then I put two and two together.....


Oh, and my second thought was "In further news, water is found to be wet".

There is something very ironic about an article that stereotypes people who may develop stereotypical views of others.

And you don't, dear?

W@nk? Yes, regular....Not over the St Georges Cross mind. I'd maybe use it for mopping up. It'd make a change from the bedroom curtains.

Unlike most left wingers who speak the speak but don't walk the walk!!

Most want better spread of wealth as long as it doesn't affect them!!

Ryan Hall vs Lee Smith

Case closed.

It's easy to pick a side - left-wing, right-wing, conservative, liberal etc. - and then self-righteously fulminate about the stupidity and ignorance of the other guy's persuasion. If there is a Truth somewhere I expect it's a complicated - perhaps even schizophrenic - one. I think it might have been Churchill who claimed he'd never met a socialist in his twenties who wasn't a conservative by his sixties.

I mean, I can't stand the circling-the-wagons mentality, the jingo patriotism, the blinkered cultural outlook and voluminous celebration of tedious repetition that conservatism revels in. However, I think it would be entirely wrong to suggest that it is a bankrupt ideology. There's an excellent section of Alastair Cooke's [iAmerica: A Personal History[/i in which he talks about the Mormon exodus (or banishment) to Utah where conditions were so inhospitable to life (scorching temperatures, few clean water sources, poor soils etc.) that even the most well-meaning deviation from an extremely narrow set of freedoms could bring calamity down upon the group.

The mere fact that human beings are the most dominant species of the millions, perhaps billions which have walked, crawled or swum the earth is at the very least testament to our resilience. But, as the Arabs say, [i"All sunshine makes a desert"[/i. A group may survive by restricting its outlook and options - but without change, without embracing external stimuli - culture, belief, political doctrine etc. - it must ultimately whither and die. Many of the freedoms we enjoy today were won precisely because people wanted something other than threadbare, dog-eared doctrine.

The problem societies throughout the ages have faced is deceit. Those who study power - from the notorious Alcibiades to Cicero, Machiavelli to Gibbon - Orwell to Chomsky have recognised how it attempts to encourage needless conservatism to protect itself. This is achieved by projecting larger-than-life but - in reality - non-existent threats. There's a great book by the Italian author Dino Buzzati called [iThe Tartar Steppe[/i in which men, alarmed by the government's threat of imminent invasion by the Tartars, enlist in the army and spend the rest of their lives anxiously peering over the ramparts of some remote Alpine fortress on the border without ever seeing so much as a hair of the enemy.

Recently there's been criticism of Obama who seems to have committed America to an all-too-Orwellian foreign policy of "Endless War". The similarities to the famous Joseph Shumpeter quote about Rome are obvious:

[iThere was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest--why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors, always fighting for a breathing space. The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, and it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs. They were enemies who only waited to fall on the Roman people.[/i

It's hard to believe the threat to America is anything close to the Godzilla-devouring-New York vision spewed out by the likes of FOX. But given that the days of infinite resources are well-and-truly gone I'd say the future - especially the long term future - is very uncertain with possibilities ranging from optimistic to grave. My guess is we will continue to see governments whittle away civil liberties, restrict freedoms and deny long-standing rights. After all, they generally have the media in their pocket (US tv is little more than a government mouthpiece these days whilst the BBC is nowhere near as impartial as it loves to preach) and given most people's dependence - in some cases outright [iaddiction[/i - chances are we'll not just see our hard-won freedoms disappear from under us like a magician's tablecloth but [iapplaud such[/i like the ignorant pigs of Orwell's[i Animal Farm[/i.

what a great post.

What i've never understood is these Jeremy Kyle types whose views are so far right its untrue voting for Labour without even batting an eye lid?

They must be daft.

Touche....Muggy can say it like some of us could only dream.

Well given that there is so much wealth is concentrated in so few people in this country it probably would not affect them anyway.

How do you define 'right wing' anyway? Are we talking racist homphobes, or would everybody who votes Conservative be considered right wing? Compared to Europe most Democrats in the US appear right wing in a number of policy areas, whereas Republicans would definitely see them as left wing.

Most people of all persuasions simply don't think at all about economic issues, national or international politics full stop. How many people have a position regarding Israel, trade unions, social security, healthcare etc that isn;t based on an ossified mindset that's almost impossible to budge, regardless of evidence (asuming they have any opinion at all that they can articulate)? Everybody brings their biases into their thinking about everything.

A case in point here in Australia is thinking about Aborigines living in third world conditions in remote communities. Talk to people of either side of politics for more than a few minutes and what's crystal clear is that right wingers tend to be biased against Aborigines themselves (definite racist subtexts), left wingers tend to blame everything on the white man (and patronize Aborigines enormously in the process), and neither side has any idea at all what to do about the problem in the long term. All we get here is endless regurgitation of the ideology - and ideology-driven approaches to most things are often worse than useless.

Politically conservative vs Politically liberal.
Socially conservative vs socially liberal (most often associated with the issue of race, class etc.)
Fiscally conservative vs fiscally liberal.
Ecclesiastically conservative vs ecclesiastically liberal.

You can go on and on.

Essentially it's the divide between those who consider established doctrine not just sufficient but essential to the well being of a particular group and those who are open to outside ideas (which may not always turn out to be good ones).

So how do you define left-wing?

There is no [idefinition[/i of left or right-wing.

You endeavoured to define right-wing, so I was wondering what yout definition of left-wing was? Surely, it can't be those things on the right-hand side of your right-wing definition?

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/05/daily-mail-calls-rightwingers-stupidThis made me laugh.[/url