What a nice way to try to deflect that it's a questionable study and that you haven't read it.
I just copy/pasted why it is questionable yet since it's in "print" and you think it unassailable.
Maybe there were just too many words for you....let me help:
That means the researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice.
But there are other possible explanations that fit the data. For example, Nosek said, a study of left-wing liberals with stereotypically naïve views like "every kid is a genius in his or her own way," might find that people who hold these attitudes are also less bright. In other words, it might not be a particular ideology that is linked to stupidity, but extremist views in general.
"Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive. These two pieces of information suggest that it might be particularly fruitful for researchers to consider strategies to change feelings toward outgroups," rather than thoughts.
I bolded them and everything but it doesn't seem like the reading aids help you much as these comments about the study seem to point out that its
researchers didn't conclusively prove that the low intelligence caused the later prejudice.
In fact, they go on to say
Much of the present research literature suggests that our prejudices are primarily emotional in origin rather than cognitive.
That's a far cry from "proven".
Now, unless you've invested in the report and are willing to share it in its entirety, it seems that your reliance upon the many sites citing the report that are using it for clickbait is misplaced.
It's too bad you vested so much in something you haven't even read because websites tout it.
