Political conservatism was best explained by reduced strategic information processing, heightened response caution in perceptual decision-making paradigms, and an aversion to social risk-taking . These three predictors were consistently implicated in the general political conservatism factor, as well as the specific political-ideological orientations studied, such as nationalism, authoritarianism and social conservatism. These data-driven findings are remarkably congruent with existing theoretical and empirical accounts within political psychology and also add important insights. Firstly, the finding that political and nationalistic conservatism is associated with reduced strategic information processing (reflecting variables associated with working memory capacity, planning, cognitive flexibility and other higher-order strategies) is consistent with a large body of literature [2,5] indicating that right-wing ideologies are frequently associated with reduced analytical thinking [74,75] and cognitive flexibility [6,15,17]. Additionally, conservative political ideology was characterized by a diminished tendency to take social risks (figure 4 and electronic supplementary material, figure S4) such as disagreeing with authority, starting a new career mid-life and speaking publicly about a controversial topic. This corroborates research showing that political conservatives tend to emphasize values of conformity, ingroup loyalty and traditionalism [76–80]. These empirical consistencies between the current data-driven findings and past theory-motivated research endow the present line of work with further credibility.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2020.0424#d1e1013
(study from researchers at the University of Cambridge)

Exposure to objectively threatening circumstances—such as terrorist attacks, governmental warnings, and shifts in racial demography—contribute to modest “conservative shifts” in public opinion. There are also ideological asymmetries in relational motivation, including the desire to share reality, perceptions of within-group consensus, collective self-efficacy, homogeneity of social networks, and the tendency to trust the government more when one's own political party is in power.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pops.12407

As hypothesized, universalism and benevolence values explained a left orientation in both liberal and traditional countries and conformity and tradition values explained a right orientation

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00828.x

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, we found that lower general intelligence 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.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797611421206

The first main finding of our study was that people with greater cognitive resources are more likely to adhere to left–wing beliefs and tend to be less prejudiced, whereas those having lower cognitive abilities are more likely to endorse right–wing beliefs and be more prejudiced. The confidence interval reported provides considerable support for the notion that these findings are both meaningful and replicable. We further assessed the validity of our meta–analytical estimates, with sensitivity analyses addressing the impact of both publication bias and outliers/influential studies. In general, these analyses underscore robustness in our meta–analytical study because the implications of the meta–analytic results and conclusions remain largely unaltered when adjusting for potential publication bias or when omitting outliers and overly influential studies.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1002/per.2027

Research has shown that people perceive others as more vulnerable than themselves to media communication, and their political out-group as more vulnerable than their political in-group. In the present study, the authors predicted that the same two biases would appear with respect to another kind of influence—conformity—but that participants' judgments would display a different pattern according to their political orientations. Rightwing and left-wing university students were asked to evaluate conformity and to estimate how conformist they, their political in-group, their political out-group, and other groups are. As hypothesized, right-wingers expressed more ambivalence toward conformity and viewed it less negatively than did left-wingers.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/SOCP.148.3.335-346

(it's ok, all of these studies were clearly influenced by the widespread liberal bias in academia, conservatives are actually really reasonable, believe me)

Posted by tangplay on 2/24/2021 3:53:00 PM (view original):
(it's ok, all of these studies were clearly influenced by the widespread liberal bias in academia, conservatives are actually really reasonable, believe me)

unironically this

I rest my case.

I'm genuinely unsure how you think this argument differentiates from your strawman in the other thread. Because you haven't given evidence that these studies are influenced by bias, or dissected the methodology of any of the studies, your argument is going to boil down to "I don't believe you because I don't believe you."

I'm sorry that you're wrong.

Posted by lostnfound74 on 3/1/2021 9:06:00 PM (view original):
Well in my own experience, I find conservative types to be not just more logical, but more open minded and amenable to other people's ideas.. The left is so intolerant it is laughable. and are the most 'holier than thou' crowd I have ever seen

Als;, conservatives tend to hold to higher moral standards.. Every chatroom you visit will verify that. this one is no exception

Lol

what is the Canadian gonna say? I find conservatives to be lacking in logic and morals? Of course not. Anyone is going to say that people who feel the way they do are logical and have good morals, for the most part.

I guess they spend their time proving that conservatives are less logical.