From The Audacious Epigone:
I've previously created indices based on GSS responses to questions about whether various 'controversial' speakers should or should not be permitted to speak publicly.
The selection of five types of speakers does a pretty good job running the political gamut (atheists, communists, and homosexuals on the left; militarists and racists on the right).
That means there are leftists who are fine with nihilistic commi faggots speaking but who don't want to extend the same courtesy to aspiring fuhrers, and vice versa, however, and that muddies things up.
Further, there are wide variances in general perceptions of what should be publicly permissible.
At 86% support among the total population, homosexuals are given the green light.
Only 61% say racists should be given first amendment protections, in contrast.
In attempt to deal with this, the following graphs show the percentages of respondents, by selected demographic characteristics, who are free speech absolutists. That is, they say members of all five 'controversial' groups should be permitted to speak publicly.
For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Because IQ ranges are based on wordsum scores, only those born in the US are considered for the five intelligence categories.There's also a strong racial and ethnic component to support for Free Speech.
GO READ THE WHOLE THING.
I asked a friend of mine, whose opinion I respect, what he thought of the results of this study. Here's what he said:
Not surprising.
Generally, you'd expect people to support whichever rules-of-the-game that they believe People Like Them are likely to excel at. It's like, if you're Rickey Henderson you probably support a very restrictive balk rule.
High-IQ people (especially verbally) are more confident they can prosper by winning arguments (or conning people with slick words, depending on your POV), so they intuit that they benefit more from a FreeSpeechtopia.
Lower IQ groups intuit the opposite, so they care less about 'free speech', or at least, other concerns come to their mind as being more important.
The interesting comparison in those graphs that kinda illustrates this is Jews vs. blacks/Hispanics. Generically, one might think 'they're both minority groups' and so their stances should be the same - 'they should both support free speech to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority'. But of course they don't have the same stance, and it's not surprisingly related to the higher IQs of Jews as a group.
The worrisome one is the Millenials not caring about free speech as much. Weirdly, they seem to resemble the 'silent generation'. I had to google that but it's apparently the people who were youths when WW2 broke out, more or less.
And Millenials were, basically, youths when 9/11 happened. I wonder if that's the reason. Something about safety and insecurity in formative years spooks people into embracing speech controls. Maybe.
That's a bunch of sociopolitical theorizing though. It might be some more boring & basic reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment