Biology is ideology
Apr. 17th, 2012 10:17 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyThere was a piece of research which hit the news a few months ago, which concluded that left-wing people tend to be more intelligent than right-wingers. The story was picked up upon and linked to on facebook and LJ by a lot of the sort of people think you can prove you’re more intelligent than other people by linking to an article written by someone else. The research – reported here - studied more than 15,000 people and found that low academic results in childhood were a statistically significant predictor of ‘right-wing’ views later in life. Disappointingly, the views tested for were only social, not economic, so whilst it was possible to infer from the results that the less intelligent the person the more intimidated and fearful they feel of things like crime and immigration, there was nothing on the opinions of high and low intelligence on things like quantitative easing to offset the dangers of rehypothecated eurozone debt in the shadow banking system, which is really what I’d’ve been most interested in.
There seems to have been a bit of a flurry of psychosocial analysis of political opinions to seek neural or mental indicators of what people believe politically lately. The recent book by Jonathan Haidt: The righteous mind examined the belief systems of people who described themselves as left and right- wing and found some interesting correlations. To quote:
They asked two thousand Americans to describe their political leanings (liberal, moderate, conservative) and fill out a questionnaire about morality, one-third of the time as themselves, one-third of the time as a "typical liberal", and one-third of the time as a "typical conservative". The clear answer was: self-described conservatives and moderates were much better at predicting what other people would believe. Liberals, especially the "very liberal", were by far the worst at guessing what people would say, and especially bad at guessing what conservatives would say about issues of care or fairness. For example, most thought that conservatives would disagree with statements like "One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenceless animal" or "Justice is the most important requirement for a society".
Looking into belief systems, Haidt identified six factors - care for others, liberty from oppression, and fairness, loyalty to one's group, sanctity and sacredness, and respect for authority. In left-wing people, Haidt noted that the first three on that list were primary, whereas right-wing people held all six as being of roughly equal importance. This difference of relative weighing of importance within the belief selection appears to explain most difference in political opinion between the sides of the political spectrum, and so it’s possible for right-wing people to console themselves that lefties are just people without faith, loyalty and respect, whilst lefties can nod and observe that right wingers don’t half believe some outdated nonsense.
Just because you know the causes of differences doesn’t mean any solutions immediately suggest themselves, you know.
Anyway, amongst the recent pieces of political belief research, one really stood out for me: a recent study by Griffith university in Australia which concluded that big, strong men are more likely to vote conservative. The research noted that the greater the physical prowess of a man, the greater his sense of entitlement and the more likely he is to hold political views which are more of the rugged individualist type than the touchy-feely. To my mind, this explains several things. Firstly, it explains why expansionist imperialism by the Soviet Union quailed, retreated and ultimately collapsed when confronted head-on by John Wayne and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and secondly why all the lefties I know seem to be flabby, pasty weeds a foot or so shorter than me. I’d always sort of thought their growth had been stunted by years of lonely onanism hunched over the works of Karl Marx and pictures of Laurie Penny, but it runs out they were actually born like that. Who knew?
Some people have suggested that the major political conflict of the 21st century will not be old 20tyh century definitions of left and right, but a conflict between liberty and state control. However, the research outlined above which apparently shows weedy but clever lefties and big, strong right wingers instead suggests that things may be different. I’d like to suggest that the defining political question of the next century will not be liberty vs. communalism. Instead I've put together a short questionnaire based on what I think the defining political question of the next century will be:
[Poll #1834247]
Your answers:
Mostly 'A's.
You're a soft girly-man and probably couldn't beat up even a single lefty. In fact, you might even be in danger of becoming a lefty yourself! However, you can save yourself by joining a gym.
Mostly 'B's. You are an ordinary, everyday sort of human being, and so probably unable to beat up more than five or ten lefties without having to sit down for a breather and a cup of tea.
Mostly 'C's. Watching you beat up lefties is like watching a professional gamer playing Doom on 'Easy', or possibly God mode*. They fall before you like wheat before the scythe. Or like Communists in Rambo: First Blood Part 2. Which you probably watch quite often.
*IDDQD
There seems to have been a bit of a flurry of psychosocial analysis of political opinions to seek neural or mental indicators of what people believe politically lately. The recent book by Jonathan Haidt: The righteous mind examined the belief systems of people who described themselves as left and right- wing and found some interesting correlations. To quote:
They asked two thousand Americans to describe their political leanings (liberal, moderate, conservative) and fill out a questionnaire about morality, one-third of the time as themselves, one-third of the time as a "typical liberal", and one-third of the time as a "typical conservative". The clear answer was: self-described conservatives and moderates were much better at predicting what other people would believe. Liberals, especially the "very liberal", were by far the worst at guessing what people would say, and especially bad at guessing what conservatives would say about issues of care or fairness. For example, most thought that conservatives would disagree with statements like "One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenceless animal" or "Justice is the most important requirement for a society".
Looking into belief systems, Haidt identified six factors - care for others, liberty from oppression, and fairness, loyalty to one's group, sanctity and sacredness, and respect for authority. In left-wing people, Haidt noted that the first three on that list were primary, whereas right-wing people held all six as being of roughly equal importance. This difference of relative weighing of importance within the belief selection appears to explain most difference in political opinion between the sides of the political spectrum, and so it’s possible for right-wing people to console themselves that lefties are just people without faith, loyalty and respect, whilst lefties can nod and observe that right wingers don’t half believe some outdated nonsense.
Just because you know the causes of differences doesn’t mean any solutions immediately suggest themselves, you know.
Anyway, amongst the recent pieces of political belief research, one really stood out for me: a recent study by Griffith university in Australia which concluded that big, strong men are more likely to vote conservative. The research noted that the greater the physical prowess of a man, the greater his sense of entitlement and the more likely he is to hold political views which are more of the rugged individualist type than the touchy-feely. To my mind, this explains several things. Firstly, it explains why expansionist imperialism by the Soviet Union quailed, retreated and ultimately collapsed when confronted head-on by John Wayne and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and secondly why all the lefties I know seem to be flabby, pasty weeds a foot or so shorter than me. I’d always sort of thought their growth had been stunted by years of lonely onanism hunched over the works of Karl Marx and pictures of Laurie Penny, but it runs out they were actually born like that. Who knew?
Some people have suggested that the major political conflict of the 21st century will not be old 20tyh century definitions of left and right, but a conflict between liberty and state control. However, the research outlined above which apparently shows weedy but clever lefties and big, strong right wingers instead suggests that things may be different. I’d like to suggest that the defining political question of the next century will not be liberty vs. communalism. Instead I've put together a short questionnaire based on what I think the defining political question of the next century will be:
[Poll #1834247]
Your answers:
Mostly 'A's.
You're a soft girly-man and probably couldn't beat up even a single lefty. In fact, you might even be in danger of becoming a lefty yourself! However, you can save yourself by joining a gym.
Mostly 'B's. You are an ordinary, everyday sort of human being, and so probably unable to beat up more than five or ten lefties without having to sit down for a breather and a cup of tea.
Mostly 'C's. Watching you beat up lefties is like watching a professional gamer playing Doom on 'Easy', or possibly God mode*. They fall before you like wheat before the scythe. Or like Communists in Rambo: First Blood Part 2. Which you probably watch quite often.
*IDDQD
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 09:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 09:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 09:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 09:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:09 am (UTC)I think for most people that the more you know about a subject, the harder it is to pigeon-hole yourself into generalised terms. But then I think that a government who announce a policy, realise its crap and then change their minds/decide to reconsult is actually a *good* thing so what do I know?
Also, I'd like to see Boris Johnson re-enacting the entire of Conan as the opening ceremony of the Olympic games but I'm not sure how thats relevant.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 11:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 11:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-24 01:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:00 am (UTC)Yes, this seems to mean I classify you as a responsible adult. Well, it's all relative, I suppose.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:04 am (UTC)I'm famous for my unquestioning deference.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:10 am (UTC)That implies that they attach at least some importance to respect for authority, as a positive thing not a negative one. Or possibly it implies that this, like most generalisations, is rubbish.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:41 am (UTC)I am (for example) perfecly happy with the actions of the police during the recent London riots. The fact that a lot of people thought they could get free stuff without being caught does not mean it would have been right to crack down hard on what was believed to be a racial protest against excessive use of police force.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:07 am (UTC)"What we going to do against pencils?" he asked the two other men, huddled against the dented bins, "They have the placards, the t-shirts, the business cards?"
There was a moments pause, they stared at their feet as the chanting down the road grew, they couldn't be sure but it seemed to be in Russian.
"Hang on... I've got an idea." a glance at the half-brick, his foot, a sock was produced and the half-brick dropped into it.
"We have the technology."
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 12:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 12:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 09:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:12 am (UTC)If we take this theory to it's logical conclusion, Nick Griffin must be able to break Chuck Norris in two.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 08:45 pm (UTC)Dear me David, you really shouldn't turn up to a battle of wits unarmed. It's just not good form.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:50 am (UTC)H
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 12:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 12:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 07:30 pm (UTC)Besides, need I remind you this whole "right-left" thing was started by the iniquitous, multi-classing, die-roll-fudging French.
no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-18 02:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-17 10:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-04-18 02:17 pm (UTC)