Researchers establish link between racism and stupidity

Findings taken from numerous research projects strongly indicate that prejudice, racism and intolerance are more likely to be present in individuals with greater cognitive rigidity, less cognitive flexibility and lower integrative complexity.

More at http://www.ucanews.com/2012/02/03/researchers-establish-link-between-intolerance-racism-and-stupidity/

OK, we all know that "racism" is stupid. I only put the word in scare quotes because there are some who have a bottomless-pit view towards defining and identifying racism. For these people, any statement that suggests commonly found or suspected features of any definable ethnic or cultural community is a racist statement and should be subjected to legal action or at least the bully-pulpits of the media.

Having said that, most people I know would not set out to disadvantage or privilege anyone from any ethno-cultural group based solely on skin-colour, country of origin or religion, despite most of us having predispositions in favour of or against some groups in some of these categories. Real racists, however, do set out to discriminate and ostracize, and if asked why would appeal to some pretty primitive reasoning and sweeping generalizations. That is, most of them are either really thick or their judgement has been disturbed by a bee in their bonnet that's got lodged in there for some peculiar reason.

That's my view anyway, and the research appears to bear this out. However, I might take issue with the article in suggesting that conservatism is a place of refuge for these ignorant people. There is a kind of knee-jerk or mindless conservatism, to be sure, but one can also be conservative for very good reasons.

I think (I hope) we would all consider racism... and thus racists... to be stupid. But don't we have a tendency to stigmatise our opponents as of lower intelligence than ourselves? (You can't imagine what I think of you atheists!)

Jingthing has just opened a thread in the Gay Forum suggesting (based on a lot of research) that homophobes are generally stupid. Well, I thought, that's pretty obvious, isn't it?

But of course there are always exceptions. This is why such generalisations are dangerous, and perhaps unnecessarily divisive.

Actually, it is the same research paper. It points out that lower intelligence leads to more prejudice, and racism and anti-homosexuality are mentioned as examples.

Citation (for future reference): Hodson, G and Busseri, M. (2012): "Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes -Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact",Psychological Science February 2012 vol. 23 no. 2 187-195

The full paper is here.

Looking through this journal of 'psychological science' (whatever that means), it strikes me that there is a strong bias towards 'left-wing' thinking throughout the journal.

And the authors of the relevant article state clearly that they started out with the premise that racists / homophobes are of lower cognitive standing and set out to prove their premise. Thus the whole study is slanted in one direction and can not be considered 'scientific' at all - merely an opinion or a prejudice.

Typical left-leaning pseudo-science.

Actually, it is an internationally recognized scientific journal. If you find the research is biased, you can write a journal article, in this journal or another one of your choice, as a kind of reply. I have seen this often, Hofstede and Trompenaars (both famous scientists in cultural research) "answering" each other by publishing papers showing where the other one is wrong. This helps science to develop, it;s good and wanted.

Psychology (like cultural research) is a "soft science"; unlike mathematics and physics, there is no absolute truth. And even in physics scientists disagree sometimes...

Kindly advise the citation for your paper, once it is published.

Racism was more prevalent 100-200 years ago. Were more people just stupid back then? No, they weren't. They might have been more ignorant which made them more prejudiced or intolerant but that isn't the same as stupid.

Another thing, just because someone who is intolerant of others might be stupid, that doesn't automatically mean the people they are intolerant of aren't somehow smarter. Being born of a specific race or sexual preference doesn't make someone smarter. That's the kind of thing stupid people believe.

Racism was more prevalent 100-200 years ago. Were more people just stupid back then? No, they weren't. They might have been more ignorant which made them more prejudiced or intolerant but that isn't the same as stupid.

Another thing, just because someone who is intolerant of others might be stupid, that doesn't automatically mean the people they are intolerant of aren't somehow smarter. Being born of a specific race or sexual preference doesn't make someone smarter. That's the kind of thing stupid people believe.

Defending the faithful again, huh?

Don't need a research paper to tell me that the hillbilly places of my youth are full of bigoted, small minded fools.

Not all, but enough to see me wave them goodbye...my knuckles never quite reached the ground fortunately for me.

Its always good to have a "scientific paper" to support our prejudices. However, it just seems like this is ammunition to support our own prejudices, without actually thinking too hard about them.

I'm not sure its particularly constructive, though - except perhaps if we are looking to provoke a fight.

Presumably the causal link is that stupid people are more likely to have simplistic and narrow-minded views, which might include fear of diversity and complexity- racism, homophobia etc. and perhaps also foolish superstition. I expect that few of the great renaissance thinkers were in favour of burning witches at the stake, for example.

More useful academic research might have focussed on why stupid people become racist etc; then, perhaps we might work on changing the environment that forms those opinions - perhaps brainwashing through soap operas and popular TV shows, electric shock therapy or a wire brush and dettol.

SC

We are products of our environment. Bigotry has little to do with actual intelligence.

Having said that, it is a handy excuse for the 'enlightened ones' to feel superior to the rest of humanity.

Might there not be better uses for the research funds? Am I right in thinking that too much money is wasted these days researching into things which do not contribute to our wellbeing in any way, nor even to the accumulation of knowledge?

Might there not be better uses for the research funds? Am I right in thinking that too much money is wasted these days researching into things which do not contribute to our wellbeing in any way, nor even to the accumulation of knowledge?

We (the US) could always spend millions on the sex life of the Malayan toad. Things like that seem to be popular in Washington.

Its always good to have a "scientific paper" to support our prejudices. However, it just seems like this is ammunition to support our own prejudices, without actually thinking too hard about them.

I'm not sure its particularly constructive, though - except perhaps if we are looking to provoke a fight.

Presumably the causal link is that stupid people are more likely to have simplistic and narrow-minded views, which might include fear of diversity and complexity- racism, homophobia etc. and perhaps also foolish superstition. I expect that few of the great renaissance thinkers were in favour of burning witches at the stake, for example.

More useful academic research might have focussed on why stupid people become racist etc; then, perhaps we might work on changing the environment that forms those opinions - perhaps brainwashing through soap operas and popular TV shows, electric shock therapy or a wire brush and dettol.

SC

Perhaps stupid people are simply more susceptible to such nonsense. I think most of this is learnt in childhood, probably in their own home.

In addition stupid people travel less and therefore have less life experience outside their immediate surroundings. If you remove the environment then their attitudes to a whole range of things can change.

I'd hate to think such behaviours were set in stone...especially for young people.

Racism was more prevalent 100-200 years ago. Were more people just stupid back then? No, they weren't. They might have been more ignorant which made them more prejudiced or intolerant but that isn't the same as stupid.

Another thing, just because someone who is intolerant of others might be stupid, that doesn't automatically mean the people they are intolerant of aren't somehow smarter. Being born of a specific race or sexual preference doesn't make someone smarter. That's the kind of thing stupid people believe.

Defending the faithful again, huh?

I'll spell it out for you - just because stupid people do not like some other people, does not make those other people smart themselves.

IMO you yourself post in a racist manner. You have displayed some extreme views on people of European descent - yet still use a white guy as your avatar.

Presumably the causal link is that stupid people are more likely to have simplistic and narrow-minded views, which might include fear of diversity and complexity- racism, homophobia etc. and perhaps also foolish superstition.

SC

I agree.

Perhaps stupid people are simply more susceptible to such nonsense. I think most of this is learnt in childhood, probably in their own home.

In addition stupid people travel less and therefore have less life experience outside their immediate surroundings. If you remove the environment then their attitudes to a whole range of things can change.

I agree with this too.

It's easy to mock science simply for seeming to prove 'obvious' facts, but what quite often happens is that the obvious turns out not to be true- or that there are ways of looking at two opposite claims that both seem 'obvious', but only one is in fact true scientifically (supported by evidence). The only way to be sure is to do the actual science. And you might be surprised how incredibly important it is to study the way sex happens across species; it is a fundamental mechanism of the entire science of biology.

It's easy to mock science simply for seeming to prove 'obvious' facts, but what quite often happens is that the obvious turns out not to be true- or that there are ways of looking at two opposite claims that both seem 'obvious', but only one is in fact true scientifically (supported by evidence). The only way to be sure is to do the actual science. And you might be surprised how incredibly important it is to study the way sex happens across species; it is a fundamental mechanism of the entire science of biology.

Please define 'science'.

Are we discussing 'real' science, where there is almost always only one positive solution at the end of a series of provable tests / formulae / calculations - or are we discussing 'social' science, where there can be multiple end-results according to the phrasing of questions, the location of the questioning, the selection of questionees and the interpretation of the answers.

It's easy to mock science simply for seeming to prove 'obvious' facts, but what quite often happens is that the obvious turns out not to be true- or that there are ways of looking at two opposite claims that both seem 'obvious', but only one is in fact true scientifically (supported by evidence). The only way to be sure is to do the actual science. And you might be surprised how incredibly important it is to study the way sex happens across species; it is a fundamental mechanism of the entire science of biology.

Please define 'science'.

Are we discussing 'real' science, where there is almost always only one positive solution at the end of a series of provable tests / formulae / calculations - or are we discussing 'social' science, where there can be multiple end-results according to the phrasing of questions, the location of the questioning, the selection of questionees and the interpretation of the answers.

Yes. What you call "real" science is usually referred to as "hard" science in the academic world, i.e questions have answers that are either right or wrong. What you call "social" sciences is often referred to a "soft" sciences (come to think of it, the terms may be interchangeable), and are sciences non the less.

In social sciences, the sampling is very important. Yes, I can influence the outcome by choosing a location. Q: "How important do you think it is for Thai people to learn English?" will have different outcomes when asked in front of Chula as opposed to the local football field in Nakorn Nowhere.

Editors of academic journals are aware of this, believe it or not. Articles are "double-blind peer reviewed" to filter out biases and, indeed, cheating. More articles are rejected than published, and this paper having been published by Sage in one of their journals says that it has been reviewed. The journal publishers have a reputation to keep within the academic world, you see.