Another study linking political views with intelligence

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
FWIW the authors of the study say that they are conservative and libertarian in their views. When it comes to liberal vs conservative, they make the classification thusly:

"The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights."

Before denouncing the article or promoting it, please read the nuances the scientists note. If know we have a lot of knee-jerks morons here who will not bother reading this but I thought it might be helpful to say.

(CNN) -- Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."
Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.

The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.

Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a "new" preference.
For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.

Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.

"Historically, anything that's new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence," he noted.
The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.

"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.

Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.

The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.
It also makes sense that "conservatism" as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.

Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."

Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.

None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.

"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
yeah, you're right, wrong section. mods move or leave it here however they feel.. =)
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
10
0
This belongs in P&N... it'd be about the equivalent of driving into a hornet's nest with a bulldozer.
 

grrl

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
6,204
1
0
Wow, guy calls others morons then posts in clearly wrong forum.
 

Colt45

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
19,721
1
0
Stupid people are more likely to be religious and not care about strangers. They probably vote republican too. Story at 11.
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
Wow, guy calls others morons then posts in clearly wrong forum.

The post I had read in off-topic was about the 8.8 Chilean earthquake, so in my head I was thinking I was in P&N.

THat is not to say I am not a moron. I am a moron capable of identifying other morons around me, such as yourself
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
FWIW the authors of the study say that they are conservative and libertarian in their views. When it comes to liberal vs conservative, they make the classification thusly:

"The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights."

Before denouncing the article or promoting it, please read the nuances the scientists note. If know we have a lot of knee-jerks morons here who will not bother reading this but I thought it might be helpful to say.



http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html

So you believe some random psychologist?
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
So you believe some random psychologist?

No.. I have a nominal amount of faith in the scientific process..

You know.. the thing that brought you drugs, and cars, and planes, and everything you know today as 'modern life'.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
the study can be debunked rather easily. If you think harry reid, nancy pelosi, barney frank and chris dodd have any more intelligence than you, then your in trouble.

qft
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
No.. I have a nominal amount of faith in the scientific process..

You know.. the thing that brought you drugs, and cars, and planes, and everything you know today as 'modern life'.

Manmade Global Warming.....
 
Last edited:

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
Manmade Global Warming.....

What does that have to do with the scientific process?

Also, I guess you're one of the morons Patranus.. since the study specifically says,
"The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be."

So your little non sequitur about our nation's senators is just nonsensical bullshit. But it's not like we expected anything different from you this time around, right?
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
What does that have to do with the scientific process?

Everything. These "smart" people perverted the scientific process to fit their political agenda. They were celebrated as being "smart" because what they proved was what the "progressives" wanted them to prove not what the data proved.

Where they really as "smart" as the "progressives" like to claim or did they cheat to look smart....

So your little non sequitur about our nation's senators is just nonsensical bullshit. But it's not like we expected anything different from you this time around, right?

Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are Senators?
When did this election happen?
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
Everything. These "smart" people perverted the scientific process to fit their political agenda. They were celebrated as being "smart" because what they proved was what the "progressives" wanted them to prove not what the data proved.

Where they really as "smart" as the "progressives" like to claim or did they cheat to look smart....

You are crazy. There is no need to view everything that comes along through your paranoid pair of glasses.

This research is being published in credible, peer-reviewed journals. The research does NOT claim to be the word of God, or that they are infallible. They have simple gathered IQ data across a large group of people over a large period of time. They have assembled their data and interpreted to the best of their ability. Don't worry Patranus, they're not out to get you >.>

Oh, let me repeat this for you for emphasis:

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.
 
Last edited:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
You are crazy. There is no need to view everything that comes along through your paranoid pair of glasses.

This research is being published in credible, peer-reviewed journals. The research does NOT claim to be the word of God, or that they are infallible. They have simple gathered IQ data across a large group of people over a large period of time. They have assembled their data and interpreted to the best of their ability. Don't worry Patranus, they're not out to get you >.>

Oh, let me repeat this for you for emphasis:

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.

One of the flaws in the study (if you read the entire article) is that it examined people ages 18 to 28. Typically at this age people consider themselves more "liberal". Other studies have been conducted linking age to being more "conservative".
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
One of the flaws in the study (if you read the entire article) is that it examined people ages 18 to 28. Typically at this age people consider themselves more "liberal". Other studies have been conducted linking age to being more "conservative".

I'm sure that as time passes, further information will be gathered about the group of people you just described. Looks like they started observing the kids since they were 12-17 years old. Perhaps even in older folk, a higher degree of liberalism is correlated with higher intelligence, even if the overall degree of liberalism is lower. But I'm just spouting off conjecture.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,722
6,201
126
I wonder just how insignificant a 6 to 11 point IQ difference is. I think that's about the amount above average Jews test, no? Compare Jewish contribution to the intellectual life of the world with their percentage of the total population.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
I wonder just how insignificant a 6 to 11 point IQ difference is. I think that's about the amount above average Jews test, no? Compare Jewish contribution to the intellectual life of the world with their percentage of the total population.



Probably nothing meaningful in the "real world".
 
Last edited:

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
So smarter people figure out caring about the common good is sound reasoning. Less smart people remain greedy and selfish.

Smarter people reject made up dogma without evidence. Less smart people are content with it.

Smarter people choose the benefits of monogamy, while less smart people loose control to their urges.

Interesting stuff.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,035
1
81
More psuedoscience being passed off as science. As pointed out, people between the ages of 18 and 28 are predominantly liberal, as they have yet to have enough life experience to realize that liberalism is a crock of shit and that the liberal leaders do not actually have the "common good" in mind when they pass their legislation.

I could just as easily poll people between 25 and 50 and find a study which shows exactly the opposite as this. This is why anything having to do with human behavior is pseudoscience and not real science. It is not possible to quantify human behavior. This is a correllation for a very specific group of people. There is no causation in their findings at all.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
If religious beliefs become less common place than non-religious beliefs- i.e. were not the accepted norm- and non-religious beliefs became what is considered "how everyone should be," the studies would show the opposite. People who question the commonly held beliefs of course are the more intelligent in only that they practice thinking through everything that comes their way. People who think through their religious beliefs are no less intelligent than people who think through their non-religious beliefs. It just so happens that at this time, those who are atheistic are more prone to have thought everything through b/c they have generally broken away from a cultural norm and/or family upbringing rather than taking their beliefs for granted. Once atheists become the majority and represent the cultural norm, they will provide the dumber sample
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Ok, everyone has high levels of smartness on the internet, but I'll risk saying that on that I'm a bit over 4 standard deviations above the norm. No doubt it's a mistake saying that, but I'll take that chance.

Should I consider someone stupid who doesn't share my views? No, it means I was born lucky with the ability to learn and pull together concepts from different disciplines and live in a "large" world. It doesn't make me better than anyone else any more than having been born into a wealthy family does.

Now the most obvious flaw in this are the definitions. In essence, if you care about others you are liberal and if you do not then you are conservative.

I can pick that apart in so many ways, it's comical. First, it mentions private resources. Very well.

There are a great many in people right now who out of their private resources are working around the clock in Haiti. Guess what? A whole lot of them are from churches taking money from their own savings to fly there, buy materials etc. That's about as private is it gets. A great many are also against what they would consider invasive government practices. Most (not all) would be pro life.

So they are demonstrating that they will help others at the risk of their own safety, take of their own resources, not even from other charitable organizations.

By using the definition provided, the most liberal and intelligent people are the most generous church goers who oppose abortion and large government programs in general.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |