Debate Now Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?

[Roadrunner]

A number of studies say "yes", but of course, the "devil is in the details", so then again, it could all be smoke and mirrors. Or, maybe not? Hmmmm......

Do Racism Conservatism and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand Psychology Today

Low IQ Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice Racism Bias Politics Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice Racism Conservatism

Multiple Scientific Studies Confirm Extreme Conservatism Linked to Racism Low I.Q. Americans Against the Tea Party

Those FOUR links refer to an intensive study done by Hodson, & Busseri, in 2012, called: "Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact." It was published in Psychological Science, 23, 187-195.


And this study:

Are Conservatives Dumber Than Liberals - Reason.com

(though that study does not run along the same lines exactly)


And this study, from 2009-2010:

Study Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives - TIME





(that link is an excellent case for finding the really necessary stuff in the details... hint, hint...)

And a completely different study from 2013, actually comparing the brain sizes of people of different political orientations:

The Surprising Brain Differences Between Democrats and Republicans Mother Jones

and the direct links:

Fear as a Disposition and an Emotional State A Genetic and Environmental Approach to Out-Group Political Preferences - Hatemi - 2013 - American Journal of Political Science - Wiley Online Library

PLOS ONE Red Brain Blue Brain Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, before anyone get's his or her dander up, go read the links. You will be surprised at the plethora of information out there, and a lot of it can be rebutted - you just need to know where to look. I have DELIBERATELY not quoted anything from the links yet, to allow others to first read from start to finish and digest the material at hand.

PS: I live in a time zone that is 6 hours ahead of New York City, so some responses on my part will be delayed.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems. No flaming, no getting personal, no insults. Stick to the topic, not the person.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is absolutely forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted. For this reason I already provided neutral links directly to the core data for a number of studies under the links of websites that one side may consider partisan.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism - including the OP.
9. Serious debate also means taking time to formulate an answer - so this should be a slow, thoughtful thread. I don't expect a response in the first 60 minutes after the thread goes up. You will need at least that much time to actually absorb the material needed to successfully debate this statistical issue.
10. Have some fun while you are at it. That's an order. Life is short, enjoy what you do.

-Stat

I say no, they do not go hand in hand.

There have been far too many intelligent racists, from Hitler, to Stalin to Hugo Black and Robert Byrd.

Ok, that's a start, and also a point well taken. This is the kind of discourse I have been looking for. You could back that up with more information about those particular individuals, but you took the time to make a point, stay on topic and actually address the issue, which gets a big thumbs up from me. Continue...

I am not going to the Urban Dictionary to see what a "big thumbs up" means.

I do not want to know!

 

[Roadrunner]

Why are you shitting in stats thread?

 

[Carla_Danger]

It doesn't take to many IQ points to make everything a race issue, whites BAD, blacks GOOD. UGG. Cheap shots and ill thought out comments. Try again. Blacks need to try harder, not blame harder. Been there done that.

Is I.Q. also related to race and gender? The question the OP raises is equally bigoted and offensive....not to mention ignorant.

I am still waiting for a definition of racism.

It certainly is NOT "disagreeing with Progressives".

It is the belief that one group is superior to another in regard to basic human rights, in my opinion.

To others, it is disagreeing with the Ferguson Grand Jury and the Justice Department in the Michael Brown death.

You have made a valid point, since racism is mentioned in the OP title. But that is not the only aspect of the OP, and the data from the studies, which can be rebutted in a cogent way, is really the crux of this all.

You keep avoiding answering the basic question: If I.Q. is somehow related to political affiliation by the same logic why cannot it also be related to race or gender?

There are many studies which say as much.

I will keep asking the question until it is answered honestly. Otherwise, this is nothing more than a flat out troll thread.

Where are these credible studies of yours? I'd like a link.

Google it. There are thousands. But since you ask....


If I.Q. is somehow related to political affiliation by the same logic why cannot it also be related to race or gender?

I did Google it. I found no credible sources.

 

[jasonnfree]

My respect for the OP has reached a new level

It should. I published a topic that can really be debated and I even indicated that there are ways to successfully rebut the information.

Stop being emotional and learn to debate.

Democrats are the party of the KKK, Tuskegee experiments, black eugenics (aka: planned parenthood), Jim crow, slavery and " I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years"

Its pathetic and laughable that you say conservatives are racists. I can't debate a flat out lie

The average black person today could tell you why they vote democrat. Republicans have nothing to offer working class people except lower taxes for the wealthy and corporations, which will bring back the good times. Looks like Blacks are too intelligent to buy that crock of b.s., unlike a lot of working class republicans. If that weren't enough to get Blacks voting democrat, they could read the thousands of racist posts on this board, almost all by right wingers. Your bringing up stuff democrats did over a half century ago. Most of them switched to republican party after the civil rights marches, voting rights, Martin Luther King's speeches, etc. Surprised you didn't know that, Frank.

 

[Conservative65]

Since racism is a child of "fear" and ignorance creates fear, I tend to agree that they go hand in hand.

"Since racism is a child of "fear'" is nothing but opinion.

Since Mertex is the typical Liberal, he considers his opinion as fact and demands you do the same.

That is not the purpose of this thread and your posting is not in accordance with the rules of the SDZ, either.

Take the time to actually READ the information in the OP, then see if you can find a way to rebut what it being said.

Really, learning to debate in a civil way is possible.

Typical Liberal mindset that someone who disagrees simply hasn't read what was posted.

You posted nothing to rebut. Nonsense doesn't need a rebuttal. It rebuts itself merely by it being nonsense.

 

[JoeMoma]

Liberal, politically correct professors perform studies that link racism, conservatism and low IQ -- who would have guessed it! Does the word BIAS come to mind.

 

[Statistikhengst]

A number of studies say "yes", but of course, the "devil is in the details", so then again, it could all be smoke and mirrors. Or, maybe not? Hmmmm......

Do Racism Conservatism and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand Psychology Today

Low IQ Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice Racism Bias Politics Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice Racism Conservatism

Multiple Scientific Studies Confirm Extreme Conservatism Linked to Racism Low I.Q. Americans Against the Tea Party

Those FOUR links refer to an intensive study done by Hodson, & Busseri, in 2012, called: "Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact." It was published in Psychological Science, 23, 187-195.


And this study:

Are Conservatives Dumber Than Liberals - Reason.com

(though that study does not run along the same lines exactly)


And this study, from 2009-2010:

Study Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives - TIME





(that link is an excellent case for finding the really necessary stuff in the details... hint, hint...)

And a completely different study from 2013, actually comparing the brain sizes of people of different political orientations:

The Surprising Brain Differences Between Democrats and Republicans Mother Jones

and the direct links:

Fear as a Disposition and an Emotional State A Genetic and Environmental Approach to Out-Group Political Preferences - Hatemi - 2013 - American Journal of Political Science - Wiley Online Library

PLOS ONE Red Brain Blue Brain Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, before anyone get's his or her dander up, go read the links. You will be surprised at the plethora of information out there, and a lot of it can be rebutted - you just need to know where to look. I have DELIBERATELY not quoted anything from the links yet, to allow others to first read from start to finish and digest the material at hand.

PS: I live in a time zone that is 6 hours ahead of New York City, so some responses on my part will be delayed.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems. No flaming, no getting personal, no insults. Stick to the topic, not the person.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is absolutely forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted. For this reason I already provided neutral links directly to the core data for a number of studies under the links of websites that one side may consider partisan.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism - including the OP.
9. Serious debate also means taking time to formulate an answer - so this should be a slow, thoughtful thread. I don't expect a response in the first 60 minutes after the thread goes up. You will need at least that much time to actually absorb the material needed to successfully debate this statistical issue.
10. Have some fun while you are at it. That's an order. Life is short, enjoy what you do.

-Stat

I say no, they do not go hand in hand.

There have been far too many intelligent racists, from Hitler, to Stalin to Hugo Black and Robert Byrd.

Ok, that's a start, and also a point well taken. This is the kind of discourse I have been looking for. You could back that up with more information about those particular individuals, but you took the time to make a point, stay on topic and actually address the issue, which gets a big thumbs up from me. Continue...

I am not going to the Urban Dictionary to see what a "big thumbs up" means.

I do not want to know!

Ok, that qualifies under the last op rule, which says to have fun.

No fear, "big thumbs up" is not a secret code. No dictionary necessary.



Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

Since racism is a child of "fear" and ignorance creates fear, I tend to agree that they go hand in hand.

"Since racism is a child of "fear'" is nothing but opinion.

Since Mertex is the typical Liberal, he considers his opinion as fact and demands you do the same.

That is not the purpose of this thread and your posting is not in accordance with the rules of the SDZ, either.

Take the time to actually READ the information in the OP, then see if you can find a way to rebut what it being said.

Really, learning to debate in a civil way is possible.

Typical Liberal mindset that someone who disagrees simply hasn't read what was posted.

You posted nothing to rebut. Nonsense doesn't need a rebuttal. It rebuts itself merely by it being nonsense.

Your response contributed nothing to the debate, what you wrote is nothing more than an attack. I suggest that you reread the rules for the SDZ and the OP rules as well. Thank you.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

Liberal, politically correct professors perform studies that link racism, conservatism and low IQ -- who would have guessed it! Does the word BIAS come to mind.

You cited not one bit of data nor did you give any evidence to rebut any of the data. Instead, you threw out an general ad hominem. Please see the OP rules. Thanks.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[WelfareQueen]

This is the critical debate question. I will continue to ask until it is addressed.


If I.Q. is somehow related to political affiliation by the same logic why cannot it also be related to race or gender?

 

[Carla_Danger]

This is the critical debate question. I will continue to ask until it is addressed.


If I.Q. is somehow related to political affiliation by the same logic why cannot it also be related to race or gender?

Why would it? Any race or gender can belong to any political affiliation. The study makes sense, and is no surprise to me. All racism is, is ignorance. So why is it so shocking that people with low IQ's would be more likely to be racist?

I think they should have added religion into the mix. IMO, people with low IQ's are more likely to take the Bible literally and believe in talking snakes. People with high IQ's don't normally believe a man really lived inside of a whale, and are less likely to give their hard earned money to con men/women who fly around in private jets.

Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact

1. Gordon Hodson and
2. Michael A. Busseri

Abstract
Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes

 

[JoeMoma]

Liberal, politically correct professors perform studies that link racism, conservatism and low IQ -- who would have guessed it! Does the word BIAS come to mind.

You cited not one bit of data nor did you give any evidence to rebut any of the data. Instead, you threw out an general ad hominem. Please see the OP rules. Thanks.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Sorry! I did assume that it is common knowledge that university professors are overwhelming liberal.

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot Study Finds washingtonpost.com

 

[Statistikhengst]

Liberal, politically correct professors perform studies that link racism, conservatism and low IQ -- who would have guessed it! Does the word BIAS come to mind.

You cited not one bit of data nor did you give any evidence to rebut any of the data. Instead, you threw out an general ad hominem. Please see the OP rules. Thanks.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Sorry! I did assume that it is common knowledge that university professors are overwhelming liberal.

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot Study Finds washingtonpost.com

At least you want to contribute some data to rebut the findings of the data in the OP. That's a start. Good for you.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[guno]

A number of studies say "yes", but of course, the "devil is in the details", so then again, it could all be smoke and mirrors. Or, maybe not? Hmmmm......

Do Racism Conservatism and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand Psychology Today

Low IQ Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice Racism Bias Politics Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice Racism Conservatism

Multiple Scientific Studies Confirm Extreme Conservatism Linked to Racism Low I.Q. Americans Against the Tea Party

Those FOUR links refer to an intensive study done by Hodson, & Busseri, in 2012, called: "Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact." It was published in Psychological Science, 23, 187-195.


And this study:

Are Conservatives Dumber Than Liberals - Reason.com

(though that study does not run along the same lines exactly)


And this study, from 2009-2010:

Study Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives - TIME

(that link is an excellent case for finding the really necessary stuff in the details... hint, hint...)

And a completely different study from 2013, actually comparing the brain sizes of people of different political orientations:

The Surprising Brain Differences Between Democrats and Republicans Mother Jones

and the direct links:

Fear as a Disposition and an Emotional State A Genetic and Environmental Approach to Out-Group Political Preferences - Hatemi - 2013 - American Journal of Political Science - Wiley Online Library

PLOS ONE Red Brain Blue Brain Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, before anyone get's his or her dander up, go read the links. You will be surprised at the plethora of information out there, and a lot of it can be rebutted - you just need to know where to look. I have DELIBERATELY not quoted anything from the links yet, to allow others to first read from start to finish and digest the material at hand.

PS: I live in a time zone that is 6 hours ahead of New York City, so some responses on my part will be delayed.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems. No flaming, no getting personal, no insults. Stick to the topic, not the person.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is absolutely forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted. For this reason I already provided neutral links directly to the core data for a number of studies under the links of websites that one side may consider partisan.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism - including the OP.
9. Serious debate also means taking time to formulate an answer - so this should be a slow, thoughtful thread. I don't expect a response in the first 60 minutes after the thread goes up. You will need at least that much time to actually absorb the material needed to successfully debate this statistical issue.
10. Have some fun while you are at it. That's an order. Life is short, enjoy what you do.

-Stat

The science says: YES!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

A number of studies say "yes", but of course, the "devil is in the details", so then again, it could all be smoke and mirrors. Or, maybe not? Hmmmm......

Do Racism Conservatism and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand Psychology Today

Low IQ Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice Racism Bias Politics Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice Racism Conservatism

Multiple Scientific Studies Confirm Extreme Conservatism Linked to Racism Low I.Q. Americans Against the Tea Party

Those FOUR links refer to an intensive study done by Hodson, & Busseri, in 2012, called: "Bright minds and dark attitudes: Lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice through right-wing ideology and low intergroup contact." It was published in Psychological Science, 23, 187-195.


And this study:

Are Conservatives Dumber Than Liberals - Reason.com

(though that study does not run along the same lines exactly)


And this study, from 2009-2010:

Study Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives - TIME

(that link is an excellent case for finding the really necessary stuff in the details... hint, hint...)

And a completely different study from 2013, actually comparing the brain sizes of people of different political orientations:

The Surprising Brain Differences Between Democrats and Republicans Mother Jones

and the direct links:

Fear as a Disposition and an Emotional State A Genetic and Environmental Approach to Out-Group Political Preferences - Hatemi - 2013 - American Journal of Political Science - Wiley Online Library

PLOS ONE Red Brain Blue Brain Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, before anyone get's his or her dander up, go read the links. You will be surprised at the plethora of information out there, and a lot of it can be rebutted - you just need to know where to look. I have DELIBERATELY not quoted anything from the links yet, to allow others to first read from start to finish and digest the material at hand.

PS: I live in a time zone that is 6 hours ahead of New York City, so some responses on my part will be delayed.

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominems. No flaming, no getting personal, no insults. Stick to the topic, not the person.
2. Dictionary definitions will prevail.
3. Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is absolutely forbidden.
4. What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links.
5. When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position.
6. Links can be contested and if they can be shown to be biased they will be discounted. For this reason I already provided neutral links directly to the core data for a number of studies under the links of websites that one side may consider partisan.
7. If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is.
8. No one is exempt from legitimate criticism - including the OP.
9. Serious debate also means taking time to formulate an answer - so this should be a slow, thoughtful thread. I don't expect a response in the first 60 minutes after the thread goes up. You will need at least that much time to actually absorb the material needed to successfully debate this statistical issue.
10. Have some fun while you are at it. That's an order. Life is short, enjoy what you do.

-Stat

The science says: YES!!

Not necessarily. As I wrote in the OP, the Devil is in the details.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This is what a man who actually loves America looks like:

 

[Conservative65]

This is what a man who actually loves America looks like:

Where? I see an American hating asshole in the middle.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Postings 98 and 100, both from Conservative 65 - way out of line and heavily in violation of zone 2 rules, SDZ rules and the OP rules. Please do not respond to those posts, people, until the mods correct this situation. Thanks, Stat

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

Thus far, Carla_Danger was the only member to actually quote data. Good for you, Carla.

Now, here are some of the breadcrumbs I promised to drop.

Low IQ Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice Racism Bias Politics Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology

...Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]

In the first 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.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson...


Question: what is missing from this data? Where's the glitch?

Hint: look at what I bolded.

I wrote in the OP that there is a way to rebut these findings, and by that, I meant, using logic and data, instead of kneejerk emotional responses.

I want to remind again that I never once wrote in the OP that I am in agreement or disagreement with the findings of these studies. Many people here have flown off the handle, some have attacked me, but none of this is about me. It's about ideas and how to debate without letting emotions get the upper-hand.

So, what are some things that can be factually said about the information that I just quoted that could easily rebut said information?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Thus far, Carla_Danger was the only member to actually quote data. Good for you, Carla.

Now, here are some of the breadcrumbs I promised to drop.

Low IQ Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice Racism Bias Politics Right-Wing and Left-Wing Ideology

...Earlier studies have found links between low levels of education and higher levels of prejudice, Hodson said, so studying intelligence seemed a logical next step. The researchers turned to two studies of citizens in the United Kingdom, one that has followed babies since their births in March 1958, and another that did the same for babies born in April 1970. The children in the studies had their intelligence assessed at age 10 or 11; as adults ages 30 or 33, their levels of social conservatism and racism were measured. [Life's Extremes: Democrat vs. Republican]

In the first 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.

Social conservatives were defined as people who agreed with a laundry list of statements such as "Family life suffers if mum is working full-time," and "Schools should teach children to obey authority." Attitudes toward other races were captured by measuring agreement with statements such as "I wouldn't mind working with people from other races." (These questions measured overt prejudiced attitudes, but most people, no matter how egalitarian, do hold unconscious racial biases; Hodson's work can't speak to this "underground" racism.)

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson...


Question: what is missing from this data? Where's the glitch?

Hint: look at what I bolded.

I wrote in the OP that there is a way to rebut these findings, and by that, I meant, using logic and data, instead of kneejerk emotional responses.

I want to remind again that I never once wrote in the OP that I am in agreement or disagreement with the findings of these studies. Many people here have flown off the handle, some have attacked me, but none of this is about me. It's about ideas and how to debate without letting emotions get the upper-hand.

So, what are some things that can be factually said about the information that I just quoted that could easily rebut said information?

It is not clear to me that one can extrapolate results of a study done with UK children to the US population without taking note that there will be differences in the populations.

The definition of conservative and the instruments used for measurements are likely problem areas.