Posted by Nick on Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:32 | #

How would one explain these studies away?

http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/iand/Deary (2008) Intelligence child iq voting bcs1970.pdf

We examined the prospective association between general intelligence (g) at age 10 and liberal and antitraditional social attitudes at age 30 in a large (N= 7,070), representative sample of the British population born in 1970. Statistical analyses identified a general latent trait underlying attitudes that are antiracist, pro-working women, socially liberal, and trusting in the democratic political system. There was a strong association between higher g at age 10 and more liberal and antitraditional attitudes at age 30; this association was mediated partly via educational qualifications, but not at all via occupational social class. Very similar results were obtained for men and women. People in less professional occupations-and whose parents had been in less professional occupations-were less trusting of the democratic political system. This study confirms social attitudes as a major, novel field of adult human activity that is related to childhood intelligence differences.

http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/iand/Deary (2008) Psychological Science iq enlightenment.pdf

Intention to vote for the British National Party - a party with a strongly anti-immigration ideology — was less likely among people of higher childhood intelligence.

http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/fall05/bouchardt/psy3135/bouchard_fall05/articles/bouchard_03_pers_id.pdf

Posted by Darren on Wed, 24 Dec 2008 21:50 | #

Well, I would reply like this, Nick:

Most intelligent people take the path of least resistance in their lives. If they have the capability to succeed and live a materially good life, they have no reason to fundamentally oppose the system and generally support it. Quite a few intelligent people, believe it or not, are sheep.

Working class people of average to below-average intelligence are often the ones who are most marginalized by pro-immigration, equalitarian, and liberal policies (because they are the ones being replaced by imported labor). So it should not be surprising they are often the ones providing the base of support for groups like the BNP (I really don’t know the social demographics of the BNP, but I would guess this is the case as inferred from what you have posted here).

In participating in the democratic system, you take what you can get for support.

On the flip side, if you look at the various Marxist-inspired social revolutions, you’ll see that they always appealed to the rabble of society for support.

Our ideology and philosophy have been developed by some pretty damned smart people who don’t fear debating the intellectuals who stand behind the status quo. That is what counts.

Posted by j on Wed, 24 Dec 2008 21:54 | #

I wish to live the days when freedom when La Griffe will not feel the necessity to write for the samizdat, in anonimity, in the underground. That day we shall erect a monument in our university, in the form of a lion’s claw, and everybody will know who it is honouring.

It is sad that harvard’s president Summers was sacked by his enemies for daring to softly murmure something suggesting the hard conclusion of La Griffe.

BTW, did you people know that La La Land refers to Los Angeles, California (abbreviated L.A.)?

Posted by cladrastis on Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:04 | #

Nick,

The first two links were broken, but I read the third study.  I’m assuming that you think most on this site are “conservative”. 

Frankly, studies like this boil down to a semantic debate.  Who determines what constitutes “conservativism” or “traditionalism”, and who builds the questionairres and attitudinal scales that comprise these studies?  Are the questions loaded, misleading, or vague?  Do you really expect to get a straightforward Yes, No, or Maybe answer from an intelligent person about “the military draft, gay rights, abortion, or immigration”, with no other contextual information?  One needs at least a basic understanding of such ideas (and the history surrounding them) to critique them, much less to say “I agree” or “I don’t agree”.

To reinforce my argument, here’s a quote from this Bouchard paper making this exact same criticism, which the authors dismiss:

“In a recent report, Schwartz (1999) argued that, ‘‘Self-reports of behavior and attitudes are strongly influenced by features of the research instrument, including question wording, format, and context’’ (p. 93).  Our results do not support the strong version of this claim.”

What?  Regardless of what a researcher may be able to massage out of his statistics, only a moron thinks that self-reports of behavior and attitudes are NOT strongly influenced by features of the research instrument, including question wording, format, and context.  Use your damn brain.

In addition, most intelligent youngsters are TARGETED by the left for indoctrination beginning in grade school and continuing through college.  So we don’t know if these attitudinal scales are actually measuring the number of years of indoctrination received in higher education or if they are truly measuring the correlations between social and political affiliations and iq.

Also, the paper does not mention any outliers, so we don’t know if there were any unusual features of the data set.

There are numerous criticisms that could be volleyed at this paper, but I’m sure the psychological establishment will not deign to do so, as it likely reinforces their own opinions about how the world works.

Finally to “out” thes authors, I’m going to quote one more passage from this paper:

“5.1. Construct validity of the Conservatism scale
Our results clearly show that the Conservatism Scale reflects a basic underlying attitudinal dimension of conservatism as suggested by Wilson (1970). It demonstrates both convergent and discriminant validity. It correlates 0.72 with RWA, a scale which has been extensively validated (Altemeyer, 1981, 1988, 1996) and which is considered by some to be ‘‘the best current measure of what the authors of The Authoritarian Personality were attempting to measure’’ (Christie, 1991, p. 552).

The only thing the authors of the Authoritarian Personality “were attempting to measure” was anti-semitism.

This paper is BIASED.

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:05 | #

Nick: “How would one explain these studies away?”

Nick, how do you explain the concept of my (jack)boot making swift, bruising contact with your ass?

“Ouch!”

How do you explain what happens to a lemming when he goes over the cliff?

“Splat!”

I’m sorry to put it so crudely (no, not really), but this strikes me as some sneaky, slimy shit that anti-White, genocidalist scum like yourself try to pull under the guise of ‘conducting an honest debate’ and ‘intellectual rigor’ and other such phony fucking pretenses.

“Statistical analyses identified a general latent trait underlying attitudes that are antiracist, pro-working women, socially liberal, and trusting in the democratic political system.”

And of course all this has nothing with the fact that neo-liberalism and anti-racism are the indoctrination de jure?  Nothing to do with the fact that status and upward mobility are tied to mouthing the party line?  Nothing to do with the fact that Europeans have an evolved high level of indoctrinability and low ethnocentrism?  Nothing to do with the fact that the more well-to-do can afford to engage in ‘White-flight’ to escape the ‘joys of divershitty’ so that they can maintain their self-regarding moralism and so their cognitive dissonance isn’t pushed to the breaking point?  Nothing to do with the fact that if you object too strenuously to the official lies, to the secular religion, then the enlightened, progressive PC Commissars who are committed to democracy and free-speech will throw you in the fucking gulag?  Nothing to do with any of THAT?  LOL!  Go fuck yourself, oxygen thief!

“Intention to vote for the British National Party - a party with a strongly anti-immigration ideology — was less likely among people of higher childhood intelligence.”

Uh oh, what if all those knuckle-dragging, sexually repressed, authoritarian personality, closet-fascist, White trash scum actually get control of the country?  Gasp!  Enlightened, progressive, intelligent, right-thinking Christians, er, I mean secular religious folks like you Nick might have to band together and dispense with democracy in order to save democracy.  LOL!

Again I say: GO FUCK YOUR SELF OXYGEN THIEF!

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 24 Dec 2008 22:37 | #

j: “It is sad that harvard’s president Summers was sacked by his enemies for daring to softly murmure something suggesting the hard conclusion of La Griffe.”

It is sad that some Jews still actually believe they are the “Chosen People” (LOL!).  It is sad that so many Jews won’t deign to give the White man what they insist on for themselves, namely their peoplehood.

“BTW, did you people know that La La Land refers to Los Angeles, California (abbreviated L.A.)?”

Really?  No shit?  No wonder you Jews win all the Nobel Prizes. 

Hey, j, who will fight the wars for Israel’s territorial expansion (Lebenraum - gasp!) if Whitey goes extinct/is mongrelized out of existence?  Do you honestly think an army of Mestizoes and Negroes can get the job done?  LOL!

Whitey may not be up to snuff (sarcasm - in case you are one of the few Jews not destined for the Nobel Prize) with the Self Chosen, but good goy help is hard to find.  Something to think about, j.

Posted by Astrid on Wed, 24 Dec 2008 23:20 | #

re: Nick & CC

Until people have had considerable experience they tend to ascribe to others a character and intelligence similar to their own. This could explain why young people of high intelligence are sympathetic to people from other races and cultures. They can imagine how it would be to be oppressed and wretched and imagining that these alien people are like them, cannot help but feel for them. Also, they may imagine that it would be oppressive for an intelligent woman to be bound to boring household duties for decades of her young life.

In a way, that’s the secret of the success of the underminers of White culture. They have seduced with tantalyzing possibilities for the betterment of the human race. And subtly and not so subtly, for decades, ‘demonstrated’ that the enemy of this betterment is the White man.

Intelligent young people are often idealists who can’t understand why anyone should have to be a victim of injustice and think that the whole system could be fixed.

I don’t know any intelligent people over 40 who are still delusional in this way. I mean really intelligent, not just in positions that are supposedly inhabited by intelligent people.

Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:43 | #

Nick: “How would one explain these studies away?”

Nick, how do you explain the concept of my (jack)boot making swift, bruising contact with your ass?

“Ouch!”

How do you explain what happens to a lemming when he goes over the cliff?

“Splat!”

I’m sorry to put it so crudely (no, not really), but this strikes me as some sneaky, slimy shit that anti-White, genocidalist scum like yourself try to pull under the guise of ‘conducting an honest debate’ and ‘intellectual rigor’ and other such phony fucking pretenses.

“Statistical analyses identified a general latent trait underlying attitudes that are antiracist, pro-working women, socially liberal, and trusting in the democratic political system.”

And of course all this has nothing with the fact that neo-liberalism and anti-racism are the indoctrination de jure?  Nothing to do with the fact that status and upward mobility are tied to mouthing the party line?  Nothing to do with the fact that Europeans have an evolved high level of indoctrinability and low ethnocentrism?  Nothing to do with the fact that the more well-to-do can afford to engage in ‘White-flight’ to escape the ‘joys of divershitty’ so that they can maintain their self-regarding moralism and so their cognitive dissonance isn’t pushed to the breaking point?  Nothing to do with the fact that if you object too strenuously to the official lies, to the secular religion, then the enlightened, progressive PC Commissars who are committed to democracy and free-speech will throw you in the fucking gulag?  Nothing to do with any of THAT?  LOL!  Go fuck yourself, oxygen thief!

“Intention to vote for the British National Party - a party with a strongly anti-immigration ideology — was less likely among people of higher childhood intelligence.”

Uh oh, what if all those knuckle-dragging, sexually repressed, authoritarian personality, closet-fascist, White trash scum actually get control of the country?  Gasp!  Enlightened, progressive, intelligent, right-thinking Christians, er, I mean secular religious folks like you Nick might have to band together and dispense with democracy in order to save democracy.  LOL!

Again I say: GO FUCK YOUR SELF OXYGEN THIEF!

CC, great denunciation of that worm!

May all you anti-Whites burn in thermonuclear hellfire!

Posted by Armor on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:57 | #

I don’t know any intelligent people over 40 who are still delusional in this way. (—Astrid)

It isn’t just the lack of experience. I’m sure young people are more enclined to engage in theoretical discussions where they defend absurd positions, especially if they are intellectuals.
Internet discussion boards sometimes prompt the same kind of attitude: some people will defend impractical leftist positions, and we may take their opinions at face value, until we realize they are just playing and posturing.
(As for Nick’s links, I don’t suppose they say anything serious either.)

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 02:36 | #

“In a recent report, Schwartz (1999) argued that, ‘‘Self-reports of behavior and attitudes are strongly influenced by features of the research instrument, including question wording, format, and context’’ (p. 93).  Our results do not support the strong version of this claim.”

We all know that more intelligent people would never be more capable of knowing the party line and convincing interlocutors that they believe in it; nor would being more intelligent push them toward the flexibility end of the morality spectrum, and away from the rigidity end.

That much is for certain.

P.S., emotional quotient scores (analogous to the interlocution in question) results are a proxy for IQ; the difference is there’s no easy way to “cheat” on the latter as for the former.

Posted by iqmoralcorrelation on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 03:36 | #

We all know that more intelligent people would never be more capable of knowing the party line and convincing interlocutors that they believe in it; nor would being more intelligent push them toward the flexibility end of the morality spectrum, and away from the rigidity end.

Excellent, Svigor!

Good ass-kicking response by Cap’n C, as well.

Posted by zuwr on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 06:41 | #

Nick,

I have no reason to doubt the integrity of Deary.  I read the first Deary paper here:
<link>http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/iand/Deary (2008) Intelligence child iq voting bcs1970.pdf</link>

(Deary uses spaces in his file names thereby messing up the links to the papers….sigh)

Under Methods,  I feel that having a computer ask interview questions is better from a standpoint of reducing bias, although the recent scandal about publishing the list of names of BNP supporters shows that supporting the BNP is socially unacceptable.  Thus there is a reason to lie or non respond to questions about the BNP.

Under Appendix, the data set shows that only 16 males and 11 females responded that they voted for the British National Party out of 6352 questioned.  However, only 4044 people out of 6352 provided information on that question.  The data set for 2004 is a bit larger, 48 males and 14 females intended to vote for the BNP.  5492 out of 6352 answered this question.

When Deary finds p values with respect to BNP support, the assumption is that experimental design is clean.  This is an unwarranted assumption.  The high non response rate to the political questions compared to the low numbers who say they voted for or supported the BNP makes the data set unreliable with regards to finding the intelligence of BNP supporters.  If it matters to you, you could pose the question to Deary, “Do you think it is possible that high IQ BNP voters would lie or non respond on the interview question thereby affecting the results?”  It doesn’t matter to me.  I take it as a given after looking at the data.

Posted by zuwr on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:49 | #

Nick,

I read the second Deary paper here:
<link>http://www.psy.ed.ac.uk/people/iand/Deary (2008) Intelligence child iq voting bcs1970.pdf</link>

I haven’t looked at enough data on to have an opinion on the results.  I second some of the concerns of previous posters regarding survey design.

I do want to point out that if you look at figure 1, you see that there is no correlation between Occupational Social Class and Liberal, Nontraditional Social Attitudes.  There are correlations between g and Occupational Social Class and also between g and Liberal, Nontraditional Social Attitudes.  This would suggest that not having Liberal, Nontraditional Social Attitudes may be beneficial to those having lower g to reach a higher Occupational Social Class.  It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between work ethic and Liberal, Nontraditional Social Attitudes if g is held constant. 

I’ve spent enough time on this, so I’ll pass at looking at the Bouchard paper.

Posted by Astrid on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:56 | #

Of course I should have added - or else they’re lying.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:33 | #

Notice that the coward Nick has not come back to defend his position (shit, he didn’t even have the balls to state his obvious position).  It’s limp-wristed punks like Nick that have fantasies of “smashing fascism”.  LOL!

Posted by Gudmund on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:32 | #

Addendum:

Nothing to do with the fact that the more well-to-do can afford to engage in ‘White-flight’ to escape the ‘joys of divershitty’ so that they can maintain their self-regarding moralism and so their cognitive dissonance isn’t pushed to the breaking point?

I was brought up in the upper class, and yet here I am (perhaps it had to do with the fact that my high school was infested by Jews and the system there was clearly rigged in their favor - that woke me up from a young age.)  Even if I’m the exception rather than the rule, I would beg you reconsider your evaluation of those in the upper class.  Some of us are educated and care about what happens to our kinsmen.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:38 | #

Merry Christmas everyone!

Anyone know if this was supposed to take place on Christmas Day, or even Christmas Eve?  Seems right up a Zhid’s alley, if you’ll pardon the pun (you know, a big orgy in front of all the Christmas pilgrims?).  Raelians are a bunch of Zhids after all.

Nobody seems to want to acknowledge WHAT DAY this thing was supposed to go down (pardon the pun).  Maybe cancelled because of the risk it would expose the tribe to.  Having a mass orgy on Christmas day is a bit much even for Zhids.

As far as I can tell, International Orgasm Day is in August, so I don’t know wtf they’re talking about there, though IOD sounds like a Zhid operation from the word go, and Christmas would be the day of choice for them.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:41 | #

Oh, and in theory it was supposed to be all sexual orientations, but you know in practice it would’ve been a bunch of sodomites out there in the street, buggering one another.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:43 | #

Excellent, Svigor!

Thanks.  Forgot to mention that smart people could never be better at sniffing out and convincing themselves of the party line to get ahead, of course, long before any interlocutions.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:48 | #

BTW, did you people know that La La Land refers to Los Angeles, California (abbreviated L.A.)?

No, but that makes sense.  How you holding up, J?  Merry Christmas.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 25 Dec 2008 20:31 | #

Gudmund: “Even if I’m the exception rather than the rule, I would beg you reconsider your evaluation of those in the upper class.  Some of us are educated and care about what happens to our kinsmen.”

Gudmund, I’m perfectly aware that those in the “upper class” put their pants on one leg at a time, and that ‘death is the great equalizer’ and such like.  The decadence and frivolity of the well-to-do, and the idiocy and degeneracy of the not, are symptoms of the general rot that has grasped our people as a result of the lack of a spiritualized consciousness of our peoplehood.  I am not anti-wealth (I am not a judeocommunist) but I am opposed to the extreme disparities in wealth between the various classes of our people - it is not healthy.  I dream of a new order for our race in which wealthy and working-man will be brought together, united by the shared struggle for the upward climb of our people to spiritual and racial health.  The engine, the impetus, for our Movement, necessarily comes from the working-class whose primary motivation is their desire to secure the necessities of life - we can give them that, in spades.  It is the leadership vanguard, who will guide the masses to the realization of a higher vision, that will be disproportionately from the upper classes.  The way in which I address the anti-White genocidalist scum is not necessarily where I present my well-thought-out, thesis-like pronouncements a given matter - it is to crush the scum.  Besides, I’ve only been ‘awake’ for a year and change now, I certainly don’t have all the answers. 

I think of you as valuable contributor to our cause and as a friend.  I hope this explains my position.  Cheers.

Svigor: “Nobody seems to want to acknowledge WHAT DAY this thing was supposed to go down (pardon the pun).”

Great, Richards has got everyone in on the act (You satisfied now, Richards?).

GW, save us sinners.

Merry Christmas to all!

Posted by The Elder Way on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:57 | #

What are the demographics of this site’s participants, out of curiosity?

Posted by Meeta Kaur on Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:46 | #

The statistics were obviously pulled from non-asian countries.

I wouldn’t expect young people, either male or female, from the Americas or Europe to excel in math at large numbers.  They are not pressured to do so.