244

“I really do believe in IQ science”: Laura Loomer, Trump ally floated for a potential White House position, goes on wildly racist rant against Rep. Ilhan Omar (www.mediamatters.org)

submitted 7 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/politics@lemmy.world

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Only months after Donald Trump Jr. floated Laura Loomer as a White House press secretary, Loomer used her platform on Rumble to launch into a half-hour long racist screed against Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Somalians living in America, birthright citizenship, and Muslims. Loomer begun the show by referring to Rep. Omar as a "black dog" whose "district is literally Somalia," and claimed that Omar's constituents are "breeding like rabbits.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 39 points 7 months ago

What the science actually suggests is this:

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.

Which is something plenty of conservatives lack the functional literacy to understand.

[-] HWK_290@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

Really interesting! Particularly that it's childhood intelligence, not adult, that determines later prejudice, suggesting that racist outlooks are deeply ingrained and set early in life. It's not clear if the second analysis considers contemporary reasoning skills, but I also suspect early and adult intelligence are highly correlated

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

It’s also important to keep in mind that a lot of intelligence testing is meant for use on children. It’s a lot easier to gauge “how developed is your brain compared to what we expect at your age” than “how smart is this 25 year old”.

[-] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I suppose it is possible that they only studied childhood intelligence in the study.

~~I'm curious if the intelligence tests somehow account for the quality of their education.~~ edit: it says yes right there in the abstract lol oops

this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024

244 points (96.6% liked)

politics

18930 readers

3119 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News