Left-Wingers more intelligent and empathetic than Right Wingers.

[borntorum]

Why the aversiveness when you see something you don't agree with? Are you a centre-right-winger then?

Hmm, if, say, Richard Boyd Barrett were to respond negatively to someone mis-describing his political beliefs, would that indicate that he was a closet right-winger?

[Munnkeyman]

Hmm, if, say, Richard Boyd Barrett were to respond negatively to someone mis-describing his political beliefs, would that indicate that he was a closet right-winger?

No, it would indicate that his sense-of-humour-o-meter was a bit askew and would need a recalibration from a primary reference.
Prester Jim even used a smiley to indicate it was a joke, I was expecting a joke in return.

[borntorum]

No, it would indicate that his sense-of-humour-o-meter was a bit askew and would need a recalibration from a primary reference.
Prester Jim even used a smiley to indicate it was a joke, I was expecting a joke in return.

Mea culpa. It's been a long day.

[Munnkeyman]

Mea culpa. It's been a long day.

I think you are secretly a right-winger though. I have my suspicions. In fact you were asking about the study earlier, here's a link to it.
http://www.unl.edu/polphyslab/sites/...ay 16_2011.pdf

Essentially the testing was carried out for the physiological responses made by two separate groups which the researchers identified, in broad terms, as either right-wing or left-wing.
Apparently there was a discernible and categorical difference in the measured skin conductance of the individual participants due to different levels of perspiration between both groups.

A right-winger would, apparently, perspire slightly more than a left-winger when shown a picture of a spider on a person's face or a maggot-infested wound. The reverse was true
for right-wingers when they were shown what were adjudged, by an independent panel, to be more appetitive images.

That was actually one of the main findings of the study.

[borntorum]

I think you are secretly a right-winger though. I have my suspicions. In fact you were asking about the study earlier, here's a link to it.
http://www.unl.edu/polphyslab/sites/...ay 16_2011.pdf

Essentially the testing was carried out for the physiological responses made by two separate groups which the researchers identified, in broad terms, as either right-wing or left-wing.
Apparently there was a discernible and categorical difference in the measured skin conductance of the individual participants due to different levels of perspiration between both groups.

A right-winger would, apparently, perspire slightly more than a left-winger when shown a picture of a spider on a person's face or a maggot-infested wound. The reverse was true
for right-wingers when they were shown what were adjudged, by an independent panel, to be more appetitive images.

That was actually one of the main findings of the study.

I f**king hate spiders so maybe that lets the cat out of the bag.

I've had a quick read through the study (it's a bit heavy going for 10.00pm and as I said, it's been a long day) and I still don't see how they define left and right. Intuitively, it makes sense to me that those who are conservative in the sense of being scared of change, and particularly those who are anti-immigrant, anti-gay or just anti-other would be of lower intelligence. And certainly it's clear that much of what makes up right-wing comment and politics in American these days is powered by pure ignorance and stupidity.

But I don't see, intuitively, why economic beliefs would differ according to intelligence levels. I am, broadly, on the centre-left when it comes to financial matters, but I can certainly appreciate that there are good arguments over on the free-market side of the fence (maybe not so many as before 2008 ), and there are many economically right-of centre people whom I know, or whom I listen to or read in the papers or online, that are clearly intelligent people.

[Munnkeyman]

I f**king hate spiders so maybe that lets the cat out of the bag.

I've had a quick read through the study (it's a bit heavy going for 10.00pm and as I said, it's been a long day) and I still don't see how they define left and right. Intuitively, it makes sense to me that those who are conservative in the sense of being scared of change, and particularly those who are anti-immigrant, anti-gay or just anti-other would be of lower intelligence. And certainly it's clear that much of what makes up right-wing comment and politics in American these days is powered by pure ignorance and stupidity.

But I don't see, intuitively, why economic beliefs would differ according to intelligence levels. I am, broadly, on the centre-left when it comes to financial matters, but I can certainly appreciate that there are good arguments over on the free-market side of the fence (maybe not so many as before 2008 ), and there are many economically right-of centre people whom I know, or whom I listen to or read in the papers or online, that are clearly intelligent people.

If you skip to Appendix A near the end of the paper you will find the discriminatory criteria used to separate the groups.

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree (or are uncertain) with regard to each topic listed below:

School prayer
Pacifism
Socialism
Pornography
Illegal immigration
Women's equality
death penalty
patriot act
premarital sex
gay marriage
abortion rights
evolution
patriotism
biblical truth
Iraq
welfare spending
Tax cuts
gun control
military spending
warrantless searches
globalization
pollution control
small government
school standards
foreign aid
free trade
obedience
compromise

The higher you score the more right-wing you would be adjuged to be.

[borntorum]

If you skip to Appendix A near the end of the paper you will find the discriminatory criteria used to separate the groups.

The higher you score the more right-wing you would be adjuged to be.

Most of those seem to be more social than economic focused, and some of the economic criteria are quite US-specific e.g. military spending

[onlyasking]

I suppose the Guardian can be taken to represent or reflect a somewhat leftish constituency. For the record, though it's a generally right-wing paper, I fairly often have a look at the Telegraph.

Anyway, The Guardian's George Monbiot has an angle on this topic:

The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

I know "he would say that, wouldn't he", but it's a fairly "intelligent" piece from the kind of leftish journalist that seems to find a home more readily in Britain than in our own carefully populated media goldfish bowl.

[Munnkeyman]

Most of those seem to be more social than economic focused, and some of the economic criteria are quite US-specific e.g. military spending

There are a few more questions on Appendix B.

But yes it would be a very U.S. centric test, but the results would be roughly the same in a lot of countries, in terms of foreign aid and welfare spending etc. Once one asks enough questions the left/right stance would be come more apparent.

[Tim Johnston]

Apologies if this has already been answered in the thread, but do the writers of this study differentiate between social conservatism/liberalism and economic right/left?

LOL are you kidding? They define them in whatever way fits their conclusions - like the Mickey Mouse guide to politics, whereby if you "like change" you're a liberal but if you don't you're a "conservative". It'd be laughable if the media hadn't picked up on it.