Intelligence Study That Linked Low I.Q. With Conservatives Exposed: Researching Canadian Psychologists Confused, Biased, & Ignorant.

Brian Nosek, a social and cognitive psychologist at the University of Virginia

Nosek said,  “the researchers didn’t conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice. To do that, you’d have to somehow randomly assign otherwise identical people to be smart or dumb, liberal or conservative. Those sorts of studies obviously aren’t possible.”

Low IQ & Liberal Beliefs Study Linked To Poor Research!

Watch out Sam Harris, Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri of Brock University are giving you competition for the worst use of statistics in an original paper.

Their “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact” published in Psychological Science1—headlined in the press as Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice—is a textbook example of confused data, unrecognized bias, and ignorance of statistics.

Hodson and Busseri on are track to beat out Harris’s magnificent effort, and they might also triumph over the paper which “proved” brief exposure to the American flag turns one into a Republican and the peer-reviewed work “proving” exposure to 4th of July parade turns one into a Republican.

  1. CIA, Bill Clinton, George Bush Jr., & Barack Obama Indicted By Congressional “Constitutional Task Force” For Crimes Against Humanity!

Low Or High IQ?

Let’s see how they did it.

The authors intimate that “individuals with lower cognitive abilities may gravitate toward more socially conservative right-wing ideologies that maintain the status quo and provide psychological stability and a sense of order”. They say that this “is consistent with findings that less intelligent children come to endorse more socially conservative ideologies as adults”.

How did they prove that idiots and conservatives are racists? They gathered two large data sets from the UK, one started in 1958 (NCDS), the other in 1970 (BCS); about 16,000 individuals in total, roughly equal numbers of males and females. They quizzed the groups when they reached 11 and 10 years old on their “intelligence”; they then came back to these individuals when they were 33 and 30 and asked them about their “socially conservative ideology and racism.”

The authors do not say how many people they used in their analysis; how many individuals were lost in the 20 years between surveys is not noted in their paper. My read of the NCDS website (pdf) makes the loss about 30%. That leaves about 11,000.

Father Of Political Correctness ~ Herbert Marcuse

Obama’s Odious Language: Political Correctness!

Intelligence was defined in one database as scoring well on matching the similarity between 40 pairs of words, and on matching the similarity of between 40 pairs of shapes and symbols. On the other database, this changed to drawing 28 missing shapes, recalling digits from 34 number series, identifying the definitions of 37 words, and “generating words that are semantically consistent with presented words” 42 times.

Thus the two samples measure similar but different abilities. The NCDS (pdf) also had available the Peabody Individual Achievement Test Math and Reading sub-scales which were not used as intelligence measures. Why?

When the kids became 33 and 30 year olds, they were asked whether they agreed with 13 or 16 questions like, “Schools should teach children to obey authority”, “Family life suffers if mum is working full-time.”

Another was, “People who break the law should be rehabilitated.” Just kidding! It’s actually, “People who break the law should be given stiffer sentences.” The bias in the question wording is ignored.

Another question was, “None of the political parties would do anything to benefit me.” Is agreeing or disagreeing with that a “conservative” position? What would the Occupy people say? Another, “Being single provides more time to experience life and find out about yourself.” Conservative or liberal?

According to the NCDS (pdf), there were about 50 questions, of which only 13 were used. A “conservative”, then, is whatever Hodson and Busseri say it is. The same thing goes for what a “racist” is.

For these questions “reliabilities ranged from .63 to .68.” This means the questions are imprecise and imperfect, so that if you use the raw results in subsequent analysis, you must “carry forward” the uncertainty in reliability. Did Hodson and Busseri do this? No.

One would have guessed from the title, that the authors looked at how the scores on the intelligence questions correlated with the scores on the attitude and racism questions, taking into account the uncertainty in the reliability. You would be wrong.

They first modeled the intelligence questions to create one “latent” (unobserved) measure, called “g”. The uncertainty in creating “g” is then ignored in all subsequent analysis.

They did the same for the attitude questions, creating a “latent” (actually unobserved) variable called “conservative ideology.” Uncertainty in its creation is also ignored.

Then the individuals’ education and socioeconomic status and separately their parent’s socioeconomic status (which again were the results of models) were put into a model with “g” and “conservative ideology” to predict “racism” (the uncertainty of which, as was already said, was ignored).

The picture below summarizes their findings.

hodson.jpg

Lo, they found small p-values. The authors appear unaware that samples of this size are practically guaranteed to spit out small p-values.

What makes the study ludicrous, even ignoring the biases, manipulations, and qualifications just outlined, by the authors’ own admission the direct effect size for “g” on “racism” is only -0.01 for men and 0.02 for women. Utterly trivial; close enough to no effect to be no effect, their results statistically “significant” only because of the massive sample size.

The effect size for “conservative ideology” directly predicting “racism” is higher (0.69 and 0.51). But all that means is that the questions the authors picked for these two attitudes are roughly correlated with one another. In other words, “None of the political parties would do anything to benefit me” is crudely correlated with “I
wouldn’t mind working with people from other races” and so forth.

Yet the authors have the temerity to conclude, “These results from large, nationally representative data sets provide converging evidence that lower g in childhood predicts greater prejudice in adulthood and furthermore that socially conservative ideology mediates much of this effect.”

Truly, statistics can “prove” anything.

WM Briggs

  1. Did You Know Anwar al-Awlaki Was Eligible To Run For President? You Know, The 20th. Hijacker Of 9/11
  2. The Astounding Growth Of The World’s Largest Religion ~ Christianity: Charts & Maps

— Barrack Hussein Obama aka; Barry Soetoro

October 27, 2008

© BarackObamaWebPage.com

A just released Obama recording has confirmed that in accordance with Black Liberation Theology, wealth earned by other groups in America should be redistributed to the Black community.

In a 2001 Chicago Public Radio WBEZ.FM 91.5 interview while a State Senator from Chicago’s 13th District, Obama was very clear about his belief in confiscation and redistribution of wealth.  The Senator spoke about the failure of the Civil Rights Movement, because it only gave Blacks equal opportunity without redistribution of wealth from whites to Blacks.

In his own words, Obama considers the “tragedy” of the Civil Rights Movement to be a failure to push FORCED redistribution of wealth.  He spoke of the need for “reparative economic work,” and the need for “major redistributive change.”

This is the Radical philosophy of Black Liberation Theology that is the cornerstone philosophy of Barack Hussein Obama.  It is the anti-American philosophy of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s friend, mentor and father figure for twenty years.

Obama concluded his interview advocating making wealth confiscation and redistribution from whites to blacks “Administrative,”  to avoid any questions of constitutionality by going through the courts.  

On the other hand, Obama has already said that courts, including the U. S. Supreme Court should be packed with judges more interested in radical social causes than traditional interpretation of the Constitution.

Barrack Obama Web Page

There is but one Deception

and Obama is its Messenger!