clinical psychologist explains how and why liberals think the way they do

[slimreaper]

[video=youtube;3-SGqRToXYE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-SGqRToXYE[/video]

 

[Uzumaki Menma]

I find it amusing how those two can sit there and talk like such enlightened intellectuals when their own partisans are just as stupid and backwards thinking as Liberals.

 

[The Work]

This is why I never tell anyone what I truly stand for.

 

[slimreaper]

I find it amusing how those two can sit there and talk like such enlightened intellectuals when their own partisans are just as stupid and backwards thinking as Liberals.

joe rogan is far far from a conservative. Jordan Peterson is an actual intellectual and joe is kind enough to give him space to express his ideas and interject when he can.

 

[Uzumaki Menma]

joe rogan is far far from a conservative. Jordan Peterson is an actual intellectual and joe is kinda enough to give him space to express his ideas and interject when he can.

I never stated Rogan was a conservative/republican. Joe is something of an Independent. Peterson is extremely conservative/traditional.

 

[slimreaper]

I never stated Rogan was a conservative/republican. Joe is something of an Independent. Peterson is extremely conservative/traditional.

you insinuated joe had partisans.


Peterson is also extremely pathological and articulate with his arguments.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

That's a nice generalization. Not every liberal feels guilt for past oppression nor is every liberal a marxist.

As for the social scientist marxist thing, I don't think they believe the concept of everyone working together for the sake of it, and genocide have to go hand in hand, which explains why there are so many.

 

[VVolfVVarrior]

American idiocy at its finest.

 

[Hyun ryu]

"Intelligence is easily one of the most controversial and divisive issues in scientific psychology. Add the issue of political ideology and the result is likely to stir up heated debate. Dr Goal Saedi touched on the subject of how intelligence is related to political ideology recently and appears to have provoked quite a strong response. The subject is a complex one and not yet fully understood. Studies on the topic have produced some conflicting findings, but one theme that seems to emerge is that the cultural context influences the way that intelligence and political orientation are related to each other.

A number of theories have been proposed about the nature of the relationship between political views and intelligence. Some scholars (for example Stankov, 2009) have argued that conservative political ideologies tend to be associated with lower intelligence on average. Conservatives generally value tradition, respect for authority, and social order, and tend to be leery of innovation and change. These scholars have argued that such values tend to be associated with cognitive rigidity and may therefore appeal to people who have difficulty with intellectual challenges that require them to process novel information. In support of this, Stankov (2009) cited evidence that people with more conservative views tend to score lower on IQ tests and to have lower levels of education. Not surprisingly, conservatives tend to react with anger to such assertions. Accusations of liberal bias among academics are often made and there does appear to be a degree of truth to these, especially among social psychologists in particular (e.g. Prentice, 2012).

An alternative theory, originally proposed by Hans Eysenck, is that higher intelligence is associated with avoidance of extreme political views in general. Hence, more intelligent people are thought to be moderate/centrist in their political views. The argument is that more extreme views, whether right-wing or left-wing, tend to be associated with dogmatism and rigidity, which are more appealing to less intelligent people. A recent proponent of this view is Rinderman who argued that more intelligent people tend to have civic values that lead them to support political systems they believe will foster education and the growth of knowledge (Rindermann, Flores-Mendoza, & Woodley, 2012). Hence, according to this view, intelligent people tend to believe that moderate/centrist parties are more likely to promote their particular social interests compared to more clearly left or right parties. In support of this, Rinderman et al. cite findings from Great Britain and Brazil showing that people who expressed support for centrist parties (including centre-right and centre-left) had higher average IQ’s compared to those who supported more clearly left or right parties. An interesting finding from the study in Brazil was that people who had a political orientation at all tended to have a higher IQ than those who said they had no political orientation. This suggests that people who are more intelligent tend to be more interested in and informed about politics generally. It is worth noting that the average IQ’s cited for the various political orientations in Rinderman et al.’s study were all well within the normal range (an IQ ranging between 90 – 110 is considered “average”). For example, those who supported centre-right parties had an IQ around 105 whereas those who supported clearly left or right parties had IQ’s around 94.


Although Rinderman et al. found that more intelligent people tended to support more moderate views, an American study found the opposite effect. Kemmelmeier (2008) surveyed college students who scored above average in academic achievement tests (e.g. SAT and ACT) and found two trends. There was a linear trend for more intelligent students to be less conservative overall, in line with Stankov’s findings. Additionally, there was a non-linear trend[1] for the most intelligent students to support more extreme (i.e. left or right-wing) political views as opposed to more moderate ones, contrary to the findings of Rinderman et al. Political views in this study were measured by first asking people how liberal vs. conservative they were, and additionally asking about their views on more specific issues referred to as “traditional gender roles” and “anti-regulation” attitudes. Participants’ views on the former issues (e.g. gay marriage and abortion) were more strongly associated with their overall conservatism than their views on government regulation (e.g. gun control, higher taxes for the wealthy, speech codes on campus). Interestingly, higher intelligence was associated with less conservative views on traditional gender roles on the one hand, but more “conservative” views opposing government regulation. This suggests that more intelligent people in this study tended to support both greater personal freedom and less government regulation in general (libertarians take note). This finding is similar to a previous finding that higher education was associated with greater support for liberal social policies but not with support for greater economic regulation (Gerber, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, & Ha, 2010).

The respective findings of Rinderman et al. and of Kemmelmeier would seem to contradict each other. The conflicting findings might possibly reflect differences between the samples. Participants in Rinderman’s study were predominantly of average intelligence, whereas those in Kemmelmeier’s study were students from elite colleges with high levels of intellectual ability. Perhaps, there is a complicated relationship with intelligence such that people of average ability tend to prefer moderate views, whereas those with greater intellectual gifts might perceive more extreme ideologies, whether left or right-wing, as more sophisticated and hence more appealing. Further research is needed to assess whether this is the case.

Another possibility is that the cultural context has an important impact on what political ideologies are most acceptable to intelligent people. The results of Rinderman et al.’s study might have been influenced by the fact that Brazilian people have had a long history of living through more extreme political regimes than in the USA. Hence, intelligent, sophisticated voters in Brazil might be more wary of extreme political parties than in the United States. Additionally, the ideologies that intelligent people support might be influenced by social norms. Woodley’s cultural mediation hypothesis proposes that that the highly intelligent are better at detecting and espousing the values that are normative at a particular time (Woodley, 2010). Hence, intellectuals might fluctuate in their support for left or right-wing views according to changing social norms. In support of this, Woodley notes a study of white South Africans in the 1980’s that found that higher cognitive ability was correlated with support for traditional conservative religious and political views, which were socially normative in that time and place. Woodley argues that since the 1960s, post-materialist values have become normative among intellectuals in much of the Western world. Hence apparent associations between left-liberal views and intelligence may reflect currently prevailing Western values.

The findings discussed illustrate a number of key points. Firstly, highly intelligent individuals may actually support right-wing views, not just left-wing ones, contrary to claims that support for right-wing positions reflects a lack of intellectual sophistication. It seems fair to say then that not only liberals, but conservatives (and those with other positions, such as libertarians) can have intellectually sophisticated reasons for their political views. The second point is that categorising people simply as generally liberal or conservative may mask differences in people’s views on social versus economic issues. The results of Kemmelmeier’s study suggest that when people are asked if they are liberal or conservative, they may give more weight to their views on social issues (such as abortion and gay rights) than to their views on economic issues (such as taxation). Therefore, in order to better understand how political attitudes are related to intelligence, a two-dimensional model that separates social and economic attitudes may be preferable to the traditional yet overly simplistic left/right distinction.

Finally, the relationship between intelligence and political attitudes is most likely not fixed in some simple way, but probably changes across time and context."

You must be registered for see links

 

[slimreaper]

That's a nice generalization. Not every liberal feels guilt for past oppression nor is every liberal a marxist.

As for the social scientist marxist thing, I don't think they believe the concept of everyone working together for the sake of it, and genocide have to go hand in hand, which explains why there are so many.

now point to where he or I said "this is how all liberals think".


The term "tend" is obviously implied. Do you seriously believe the either he or I would be arguing that there is an absolute uniform mindset of such a large proportion of the population?

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

USA's superiority complex and generalising sweeping statements to come to condescending conclusions. As per usual.

Gotta love that 'Us & Them' mentality going strong. Idiots.

 

[Lelouch Vii Britannia]

Can he also explains why republicans are so easy to fool and so dumb? Lol

 

[slimreaper]

USA's superiority complex and generalising sweeping statements to come to condescending conclusions. As per usual.

Gotta love that 'Us & Them' mentality going strong. Idiots.

you know he's canadian right?


Btw it is us vs them dumb ****. If you think it's not then go be with them

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

Btw it is us vs them dumb ****. If you think it's not then go be with them

I was about to laugh but instead this made me genuinely sad to read. I think you need to learn a bit of the history behind that term, it's not an actual viable political stance.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

now point to where he or I said "this is how all liberals think".


The term "tend" is obviously implied. Do you seriously believe the either he or I would be arguing that there is an absolute uniform mindset of such a large proportion of the population?

You're clearly painting liberals with one brush with your title and you know it. 'Oh, I didn't say all', give me a break. If I say Canadians are stupid, I'm generalizing. I don't need to say all.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the video, and I like Joe Rogan.

 

[Lightbringer]

And yet no where in the video did he mention liberals. It was just one big anti-marxist rant.

If you're insinuating that a liberal is an equivalent to a marxist, then you obviously don't know what a liberal is.

 

[slimreaper]

I was about to laugh but instead this made me genuinely sad to read. I think you need to learn a bit of the history behind that term, it's not an actual viable political stance.

yes the **** it is a viable stance. It's been that way since the beginning of time for humans. It's still that way now, there is just a common enemy now in the straight white male. Once you've successfully surpassed us, the tribal fighting will continue as normal. It's human nature to divide. If not by race it's by country, if not country, state, if not state county ETC:

It seems you're the one ignorant throwing out fairy tale notions like that.if you

And yet no where in the video did he mention liberals. It was just one big anti-marxist rant.

If you're insinuating that a liberal is an equivalent to a marxist, then you obviously don't know what a liberal is.

liberal is a synonym of left leaning. If you are left leaning you generally agree with atleast the basic principles of marxism.


Not only that but he talks about subtle changes that were made to differentiate from marxism at the 3:50 mark

 

[Lightbringer]

liberal is a synonym of left leaning. If you are left leaning you generally agree with atleast the basic principles of marxism.


Not only that but he talks about subtle changes that were made to differentiate from marxism at the 3:50 mark

And what are the basic principles of Marxism that leftists agree with?

 

[kimb]

I find it amusing how those two can sit there and talk like such enlightened intellectuals when their own partisans are just as stupid and backwards thinking as Liberals.

"stupid and backwards" In what way?

And yet no where in the video did he mention liberals. It was just one big anti-marxist rant.

If you're insinuating that a liberal is an equivalent to a marxist, then you obviously don't know what a liberal is.

They're clearly speaking on Cultural Marxism, which was at the forefront of this years election and at the top of political discussion among the left for the past 4 years.

 

[Lightbringer]

They're clearly speaking on Cultural Marxism, which was at the forefront of this years election and at the top of political discussion among the left for the past 4 years.

Can you elaborate?