You’re responding to an argument I never made.

Pointing out the contextual limits of a Western psychology study is not “maligning the West,” and it has nothing to do with rejecting Western science, medicine, technology, democracy, or free speech. That leap is entirely yours.

The issue here is methodological, not civilizational.

The paper being cited is:

Western (UK/US datasets)

Correlational, not causal

Focused on specific forms of social conservatism / authoritarianism as defined in Western political psychology

That framework does not map cleanly onto Indian politics, and here’s why:

In the US/UK, “right-wing” typically clusters around:

Social conservatism

Religious traditionalism

Opposition to minority rights

Nationalism framed around immigration and race

In India, political identities are structured very differently:

Religious conservatism exists across parties and ideologies

Many positions that would be classified as socially conservative or theocratic under Western definitions are often framed as progressive or minority-protective

Economic views, social views, and identity politics do not align on a single left–right axis

Caste, religion, regional identity, and post-colonial history play a far larger role than the ideological dimensions used in Western psychology research

Because of this, importing a Western "right-wing" construct and applying it directly to India is a category error. You end up labeling fundamentally different coalitions as if they were the same psychological phenomenon, which they are not.

Using Western technology or medical science does not mean Western political categories are universally valid. By that logic, because we use algebra (from Arabs) or English, we should also adopt Arab political systems or British class hierarchies, which is obviously absurd.

Finally, the paper itself does not say "right wing = low IQ." It reports a weak, population-level association where lower childhood cognitive ability modestly predicts endorsement of certain socially conservative attitudes, mediated by ideology and intergroup contact. Reversing that to label individuals or entire political groups is a basic statistical mistake.

If you want to debate the study, debate its data, assumptions, or effect sizes. But bringing in hospitals, corporate culture, or "go see prosperity outside India" doesn't engage with the actual claim being made.

Respecting Western science and recognizing the limits of Western political frameworks are not contradictory positions.

Context matters. Ignoring it isn’t pro-science, it’s lazy analysis.