According to a recently published study, children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults.
I will have to read the actual study in order to capture the important details, which Pappas does not identify in her article. As much as I am inclined to chuckle at this article, and smugly snort "Why yes, only stupid people could be prejudiced," the article goes so far to say that people with low intelligence would also be more likely to be politically conservative.
So here are my questions:
1. How is "intelligence" being defined and assessed by the researchers?
2. If people with Down's Syndrome or other developmental disabilities are also identified as people with "low intelligence", would people with Down's Syndrome or other developmental disabilities also be more likely to prejudiced or politically conservative?
3. Would Adolf Hitler be considered someone of low intelligence, considering that he was a white supremacist who believed in military dictatorship?
4. Does being "liberal" make you more likely to be of "high intelligence" and/or less likely to be prejudiced?
5. Is there an assessment tool that defines and measures empathy? Non-human animals are capable of empathy; non-human mammals will nurse baby animals outside of their species, and non-human animals raised with other species will get along with those different species (including humans). Do humans operate differently than animals in this regard?
Please feel free to comment and discuss.
1. I think intelligence is being defined by the child's level of mathematics and English skills.
ReplyDelete2. I am not educated enough on Down's syndrome to answer this question. I know little on the mental capacities and general intelligence of these people.
3. No, he would not. The work he did took intelligence in manipulating people and human weakness to do evil and blame others.
However, he was stupid some fatal respects like underestimating Russia and betraying them.
The world would be very different if Hitler had not betrayed the Soviets.
But we must consider the fact that people were taught that Jews and other races were racially insuperior compared to themselves.
So in that view it was considered intelligent to be prejudiced.
4. Statistically, speaking there is only a slight difference in the intelligence of liberals and conservatives, with liberals as smarter.
My observations lead me to believe that Liberals and conservatives are mainly educated in different subjects. Liberals seem to be much more knowledgeable in international affairs and cultures.
5. As a vegetarian who strongly believes in the end of factory farming due to it's inhumane cruelty, I do believe that animals feel empathy and prejudice.
While they are more inclined to keep to their own species, they have been shown to foster friendships and some species have evolved to be dependent on each other.
Similar to humans. We would be nowhere without dogs or horses.
Hi Salt,
DeleteThank you for responding to my post!
I read the article a bit more closely, and noticed that it said the following about how the researchers measured the intelligence of children in the study:
"verbal and nonverbal intelligence was measured using tests that asked people to find similarities and differences between words, shapes and symbols. The second study measured cognitive abilities in four ways, including number recall, shape-drawing tasks, defining words and identifying patterns and similarities among words. Average IQ is set at 100".
So these assessments are not really like SATs or ACTs, which do test people on English and Math, but their level of cognitive ability, which could only be enhanced if the children were enrolled in schools or had adequate homeschooling where they would learn these skills of drawing, defining words, recognizing numbers, etc..
Is it possible that a child who did not learn the names for numbers, letters, and shapes actually less intelligent than one who did? Is it possible that the child who did not learn how to identify or define things still be able to find a place for them in their world, and make use of them? (I am thinking about kids with autistic spectrum disorders who may be language delayed, but are absolutely brilliant.)
So with that said--if a child is unable to display a cognitive skill such as identifying numbers, or identifying a pattern/similarity, how would they be more likely to identify a person as different or better/worse from another?
Also with that said, is it possible that those children who are trained very well to define, identify, verbalize, etc., may come from particular schools which value students who express their opinions and come to their own conclusions about the world? I don't know...