From an outside perspective. it was actually Newt Gingrich that made the US look like complete twats.

Maybe US would need a state (Christian) church. At least down here (lutheran state church, I think orthodox is also "state") it seems to make the whole christianity, religion, atheism etc. issues quite uninteresting to common people, and any extremists on either side are just dismissed and automatically considered insane.

Even the Christian party here seems to be quite non-vocal, they mostly just want bars to close their doors a bit earlier on weekends etc., not trying to force "intelligent design" to schools or bombing abortion clinics.

Could be also that it is just related to local passive mindset, and severe weather. I mean, come on, who'd want to go out demonstrate when it is freezing? You can always demonstrate on Facebook instead.

I glanced through the study and felt my bs detector loudly blaring.

For starters there are many, many different types of intelligence. Someone may be intelligent in one area but a dithering idiot in another. A surgeon can be the best in his field but put him out in the woods as a surveyor and he could be lost. Vice versa with the the surveyor working as a surgeon. Does that make either one of them stupid? No, it doesn't, they know what they need to know for their respective jobs.

Dr. Howard Gardner came up with a list of different intellegences:

1. Naturalist Intelligence (“Nature Smart”)
2. Musical Intelligence (“Musical Smart”)
3. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Number/Reasoning Smart)
4. Existential Intelligence
5. Interpersonal Intelligence (People Smart”)
6. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (“Body Smart”)
7. Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart)
8. Intra-personal Intelligence (Self Smart”)
9. Spatial Intelligence (“Picture Smart”)
http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm

The results just do not make sense, because intelligence is relative and very broad. How do they define intelligence? This study seems to suggest that there is a correct level of intelligence, when in reality people have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Also some people freeze up on tests, but do fine on the job otherwise.

There's also free education and medical stuff. You don't have to come up with explanations to why you're not sending little Billy to college or Kid to the hospital :p

Only read the OP but I find the linking of "structure and order" with right-wing to be pretty silly. Liberals support big government structure and order as much as Conservatives, just for different reasons.

Anyway, overall I would probably agree with the general sentiment.

Definitely Ron Paul, Margharet Thatcher, Ronald Reagan are/were less inteligent than Nicolas Sarkozy for instance (lol'd hard)

and right wing shouldn't always mean "conservative" , cause libertarians are also on the right wing.

I take it you haven't been paying any attention to politics in the US. Various types of bigotry and hate have been their bread and butter for a while now. Individual conservatives may not hold all or any of those views, but at very least every time the GOP picks up votes on their platform it encourages them to keep it up.
What extremists on the left? I know they exist, but they have basically no pull in government and mostly comprise of people like ELF, ALF and PETA. In terms of actual influence on the government it would be difficult to find anybody with less actual clout.

OTOH, extremists on the right regularly get elected to positions as high as President and have been pulling the US political system further and further to the right as the "liberals" compromise with them hoping to get something done.

I guess some of these distinctions between "left" and "right" can get a bit simplified, not to mention the different meanings they might have in different countries. Context might be important.

I think you can find individuals with high IQ (just to pick something which I think is a core issue when it comes to intelligence) almost all over the political spectrum in a given country. I don't know much about the distribution, though. I expect to find few among radicals in "both ends," but other than that I'm not sure what to think. Maybe I'm also stretching the meaning of IQ here.

Perhaps the manner in which some right-wing populists tend to communicate with voters applies more to people with low education and such. On the other hand (unless I'm completely mistaken), there are some people on the far left who continue to wish for a dictatorship of the proletariat in developed countries with e.g. a more or less working social democratic government. I'm not quite sure that would make things even better, to say it carefully.

I guess much of this comes down to attitudes and morals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL1jDcAHkc8

That's EDL, not BNP, but the idea is sound. The EDL are just fucking wasters and headcases anyway.

I lol'd at the video by the way. I want one of those muslamic ray guns.

So, if the researchers were right-winged themselves, they would find a connection between low intelligence and left-wing beliefs, right?

Or they would buried their study deep underground.

I know.

But yeah, I want one too!

Which one could easily back up by taking a look at which ideology / party gave more support to the Civil Rights Act. (Hint: it was the "bigoted" GOP.) As Frater points out, it's not as simple as the study wants us to believe.

Likewise, I have opinions that would piss off either side, so what does that make me? I mean, I consider myself right-leaning but I advocate for gay marriage rights in civil matters. So I'm dumber than a box of rocks for wanting smaller federal gummint but I'm a fookin' genius because I feel gays shouldn't be treated as second-class citizens? My head all-asplodey!

Anyway, pigeon-holing this stuff is pointless. Plenty of "intelligent" people from all ideologies have done plenty of stupid and harmful things over the years. Plenty of "average" thinkers have turned out to be quite good decision-makers.