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.
What in the world is going on with research? This is where I will post entries on research, critical thinking, and human populations.
Search This Blog
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Fun with Critical Thinking
I am enjoying Pearson's Critical Thinking Blog, a light-hearted look at how people use critical thinking (or not) in everyday life, politics, business, education, and other environments.
Here is just one example of the critical thinking process that should have taken place when a prohibition on wearing pajama bottoms in public places took effect in Caddo Parrish, Louisiana. This is one of many examples that Pearson uses to illustrate the irrationality behind many decisions.
Feel free to add Pearson's Critical Thinking Blog to your blog list...there will be at least one post guaranteed to make you think and give you a chuckle.
Here is just one example of the critical thinking process that should have taken place when a prohibition on wearing pajama bottoms in public places took effect in Caddo Parrish, Louisiana. This is one of many examples that Pearson uses to illustrate the irrationality behind many decisions.
Feel free to add Pearson's Critical Thinking Blog to your blog list...there will be at least one post guaranteed to make you think and give you a chuckle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)