I think that probably reflects how little useful purpose labels such as right and left serve in this day and age. For starters identifying right-wing authoritariansim as being right-wing is a bit of a duh moment in itself. Mind you, extremist authoritarianism of all ilks is probably all pretty similar in practice. Never mind whether you've come about it via 'might makes right' or 'the proletariat should control the means of production' if you're going to just going to put a bullet in the back of the neck of anyone who disagrees. I do think, instinctively speaking, that there's probably some truth about simple answers appealling more to those with lower cognitive ability, but that's just another duh moment isn't it. Plus alot of it may be less to do with congitive ablilty and more to do with social conditioning and poverty of opportunity. There were plenty of lads at my school who came from the poorer estates who were pretty much written off as worth botheringing with despite the fact that they were intelligent people. I'm pretty sure most of them are in the same poor estates, metaphorically scratching their balls, getting their opinions from the Sun, which was a pity because a few of them were very bright indeed. I do recall losing some as friends as we passed out of our early teens when they had a certain spark crushed out of them by an unholy coalition of an uncaring education system and fathers who told them not to get stupid ideas in their heads (like doing well at school, or enjoying artistic expression and the like). And I guess that will lend itself to a more insular world view and distrust of outsiders that could be characterised as social conservatism and could easily spill over into prejudice. There's probably some interesting food for thought deep within the bowels of the study but I can't help feeling they've got it all rather arse about face. I don't think calling 'right wing' people stupid is particularly helpful though.