Arguably, it makes sense to feel colder towards people who've opted in (or failed to opt out of) a group defined by a belief system or lifestyle.
For example, if you believe that Christian fundamentalism has mostly negative social consequences, you'll likely have a dim view of the Christian fundamentalists who propogate those negative consequences. When then asked to report the feeling tone that arises when contemplating only this aspect of a person's identity, all a person has got to go off is their overall attitude towards Christian fundamentalism, which could be shaped by rational factors. The paradigm might be indirectly assessing someone's answer to the question "do you think Christian fundementalism is mostly good or mostly bad?"
People can change their beliefs (e.g. religion) and lifestyle (e.g. military career). They'd can't change the colour of their skin. At the very least, I'd say that appraising someone negatively for their race shows a different kind of prejudice than appraising someone negatively for a changeable group affiliation. The former feels more like what is ordinarily meant by "prejudice," which connotes pre-judgement that is unreasonable.
Hi Joshua - yep, I agree that it could make sense to dislike people who've opted into or remained in a group defined by a harmful belief system or lifestyle. I don't think this undermines the findings of the study, though, or the idea that high IQ individuals are sometimes prejudiced against the groups listed on the right-hand side of the first graph.
For one thing, it's not the case that the groups on the left side all involve unchangeable traits, whereas those on the right are groups you can opt into or out of. For example, while we've got Christian fundamentalists on the right side, we've also got Muslims and atheists on the left.
Also, it's probably possible to find good things and bad things associated with most groups. If someone focuses exclusively on the latter but not the former for one group but not others, I think it would be fair to say that they're prejudiced against that group, even if the things they focus on are all true.
Thanks Steve. I agree with all your points. I just think there could be something worth exploring in the distinction between more vs less rationally justifiable negative attitudes towards members of certain groups. It would also be interesting to know how stubborn prejudice is when additional information is provided about a person beyond their affiliation to a single disfavoured group, and what individual differences might affect this.
Perhaps more intelligent people are less prejudiced in the sense of being quicker to revise their initial attitude as they learn more about someone. Quite possibly not, but it would be interesting to explore :)
I'd like to think intelligence makes it easier for people to revise their views in light of new evidence. I'm sure it does sometimes. Sometimes, though, it may give people the mental firepower to be able to rationalize their prejudices!
I remember reading this paper years ago (I was once a bit of a Dan Kahan fanboy, which I think puts me in a very exclusive club 😂). Its thoroughly compelling and resonates strongly with my own experience. Scientific curiosity is a underrated individual difference!
Thanks for reminding me about it, and thanks for the enjoyable discussion. I'm glad I subscribed!
Arguably, it makes sense to feel colder towards people who've opted in (or failed to opt out of) a group defined by a belief system or lifestyle.
For example, if you believe that Christian fundamentalism has mostly negative social consequences, you'll likely have a dim view of the Christian fundamentalists who propogate those negative consequences. When then asked to report the feeling tone that arises when contemplating only this aspect of a person's identity, all a person has got to go off is their overall attitude towards Christian fundamentalism, which could be shaped by rational factors. The paradigm might be indirectly assessing someone's answer to the question "do you think Christian fundementalism is mostly good or mostly bad?"
People can change their beliefs (e.g. religion) and lifestyle (e.g. military career). They'd can't change the colour of their skin. At the very least, I'd say that appraising someone negatively for their race shows a different kind of prejudice than appraising someone negatively for a changeable group affiliation. The former feels more like what is ordinarily meant by "prejudice," which connotes pre-judgement that is unreasonable.
Hi Joshua - yep, I agree that it could make sense to dislike people who've opted into or remained in a group defined by a harmful belief system or lifestyle. I don't think this undermines the findings of the study, though, or the idea that high IQ individuals are sometimes prejudiced against the groups listed on the right-hand side of the first graph.
For one thing, it's not the case that the groups on the left side all involve unchangeable traits, whereas those on the right are groups you can opt into or out of. For example, while we've got Christian fundamentalists on the right side, we've also got Muslims and atheists on the left.
Also, it's probably possible to find good things and bad things associated with most groups. If someone focuses exclusively on the latter but not the former for one group but not others, I think it would be fair to say that they're prejudiced against that group, even if the things they focus on are all true.
Thanks Steve. I agree with all your points. I just think there could be something worth exploring in the distinction between more vs less rationally justifiable negative attitudes towards members of certain groups. It would also be interesting to know how stubborn prejudice is when additional information is provided about a person beyond their affiliation to a single disfavoured group, and what individual differences might affect this.
Perhaps more intelligent people are less prejudiced in the sense of being quicker to revise their initial attitude as they learn more about someone. Quite possibly not, but it would be interesting to explore :)
Agreed - definitely something worth exploring there.
I'd like to think intelligence makes it easier for people to revise their views in light of new evidence. I'm sure it does sometimes. Sometimes, though, it may give people the mental firepower to be able to rationalize their prejudices!
Perhaps the solution is to cultivate scientific curiosity: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12396
I remember reading this paper years ago (I was once a bit of a Dan Kahan fanboy, which I think puts me in a very exclusive club 😂). Its thoroughly compelling and resonates strongly with my own experience. Scientific curiosity is a underrated individual difference!
Thanks for reminding me about it, and thanks for the enjoyable discussion. I'm glad I subscribed!
Great - thanks, Joshua!