So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb. -- Dark Helmet. (Spaceballs, 1987)
Liberals have often been criticized, both from without and within the ranks, for being "too liberal" in their tolerance of societal dysfunction. There is a potentially toxic paradox found at the confluence of moral maturity and healthy skepticism. A morally mature person recognizes the value of a "live and let live" philosophy, and is extremely reticent to impose his own values on another person. (LINK) A proper skeptic is always measured in his declarations of truth, and leaves open the possibility that he is wrong, and so is equally reticent to impose his own beliefs. (LINK) When these two philosophies collide, the result is often a paralyizing lack of conviction to fight political or societal battles.
Liberal skeptics have sometimes found themselves in an awkward position: They demand that we face the facts head on, regardless of whether they make us uncomfortable. When the science demonstrates that liberals are in fact more intelligent and tolerant, they sheepishly retreat to their labs, unwilling to publicly admit the characteristics that made them skeptic scientists in the first place, and virtually unmovable in their refusal to admit the logic demanding more intelligent liberals in office. Far from a "liberal conspiracy" to take over the country, there is arguably an unspoken agreement to cover up the growing body of evidence that there is a scientific difference between the parties. It's far too boorish and elitist to point to our own studies demonstrating how smart we are.
A recent study in the journal Psychological Science provides a powerful bit of empirical evidence that we progressives ought to develop significantly more intestinal fortitude when it comes to society building. (LINK) In a nutshell, the study discovered a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on bigotry, an effect that was mediated by conservative ideology. In layman's terms, someone who is more intelligent is less likely to be either conservative or bigoted. Conversely, someone who is both low intellect and right wing is significantly more likely to be a bigot. The findings were extremely robust. "[T]his indirect effect explained more than 90% of the relation between [general intelligence] and racism in three of the four analyses," with socioeconomic status and education controlled for in the analysis.
The link between conservativism, bigotry, and low intelligence is far from breaking news. Multiple studies have demonstrated that conservatives are more controlled by fear -- and specifically, fear of the out-group -- than liberals. However, this study demonstrated a clear pathway, in which bigoted attitudes are directly predicted by lower intelligence: "62% of boys and 65% of girls whose level of intelligence was below the median at age 10 expressed above-median levels of racism during adulthood. Conversely, only 35% to 38% of the children with above-median levels of intelligence exhibited racist attitudes as adults." Furthermore, "[l]ower levels of abstract reasoning also predicted greater right-wing authoritarianism, which in turn predicted elevated prejudice..."
The study also found a powerful variable in the U.S that the researchers weren't expecting. Previous research has demonstrated that intergroup contact -- such as racial integration -- is more cognitively demanding than ingroup contact. This study confirmed that U.S. Right Wing ideologues pursue personal strategies of minimizing intergroup contact. In short, they are predisposed to try to segregate society.
Reinforcing these results are the findings of previous studies, in which atheists and liberals displayed higher than average intelligence, and espoused progressive (non-bigoted) social values. (LINK) For liberals, this body of evidence represents the closest thing to a scientific moral mandate that we could expect to find. American progressives have fought hard battles for the integration of society, and for equality for women, ethnic minorities, and homosexuals. (The battle for non-theist equality is just beginning.) Here we have hard scientific evidence that the path to continuing this tradition is the election of intelligent liberal officials. Here is scientific evidence that conservativism is directly and inextricably linked with low intellect and bigotry. A skeptic could hardly demand more compelling evidence that it's okay to fight vigorously against a Right Wing ideology.
More to the point, this study gives us empirical reason to ask a very powerful question during any election: Is one candidate both Right Wing and bigoted against a specific outgroup? If so, given the strong probability that he is less intelligent than average, why in the name of Zeus, Apollo, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster would anyone vote for him?! And in keeping with the scientific evidence, we'd have to offer the politically incorrect but accurate answer: Because conservative voters are also less intelligent, bigoted, and fearful of the diversity that great American statesmen have fought for, both in Congress and on the battlefield.
Science is fast confirming what many intelligent but overly polite liberals have long suspected: Liberalism (or at the very least, non-conservativism) is the political and social philosophy of the intelligent. There is no conspiracy. There is only the growing body of facts, and those facts suggest a powerful reinforcing relationship between low intelligence, bigotry and conservativism. And at some point, we have to ask, why would anyone vote for the bigoted candidate with less intelligence who belongs to the party of the least intelligent? At the least, liberals should take to heart the scientific mandate to stop feeling guilty for (probably) being right. While it's certainly boorish to taunt conservatives with this and other studies, it's arguably barking mad not to commit to fighting for the ideals which give every indication of being correct.
Comments