Posted on 02/26/2010 3:18:01 PM PST by boughtwithaprice
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall
Oh I get it, the old “up is down, down is up” game. Now this so called study makes sense.
Liberals run on EMOTIONS; not facts or knowledge.
The same is true of atheists.
Towards the end of the article it seems to say that “liberal” has nothing to do with politics and more about caring for genetically unrelated people.
That does make sense. More intelligent people tend to be more sensitive and have a stronger ‘theory of mind’ (ability to imagine what is happening in the mind of another).
Lots of atheists are materialistic narcissists who go into a rage if they get criticized or insulted. You don’t see this happen too often with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. Most atheists are self-worshiping liberals. Only an extremely small minority of atheists are humble conservatives.
I know one illiterate conservative--Repub. (and he's a self-made millionaire)
“Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with,” he said.”
What an absolute pantload. Liberals are only concerned to the extent they can use your money and in so doing appear to be compassionate. Conservatives have always been more generous expecially when giving to religious causes are included. Liberals are notoriously stingy.
Interesting how these ‘up in their heads’ libs cannot fathom or observe the historical dynamics of cause and effect however.
Whether economically (the sustainability of a system powered by individual potential, effort and rewards), morally (morals as construct for societal stability) or spiritually (evidence all around for those that choose to “see”..science and spiritually are intersecting—libs ignore the evidence)
Cold, real-world applied logic is missing from these idiot savant types apparently. Puts them at a distinct darwinian disadvantage.
They can carry on contemplating their navels and pondering why all the enduring systems on the planet carry precepts ( conservative) that are anathema to them.
Interesting how these ‘up in their heads’ libs cannot fathom or observe the historical dynamics of cause and effect however.
Whether economically (the sustainability of a system powered by individual potential, effort and rewards), morally (morals as construct for societal stability) or spiritually (evidence all around for those that choose to “see”..science and spiritually are intersecting—libs ignore the evidence)
Cold, real-world applied logic is missing from these idiot savant types apparently. Puts them at a distinct darwinian disadvantage.
They can carry on contemplating their navels and pondering why all the enduring systems on the planet carry precepts ( conservative) that are anathema to them.
Hogwash!
And that makes them bigger suckers and enablers. They are not able to imagine squat of what is in another's mind. If they could then they wouldn't be all for these crazy programs and systems they keep throwing money at. I think doing stuff over and over and getting the same result is called insanity, not high IQ.
An IQ of 103 is considered high?
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.
But if you read the study they do say that it's unnatural to be a liberal.
But they also use the term Conservative in the wrong fashion. They claim it means to not want change. So they are mixing apples and oranges. If that's the case a communist in Cuba is a Conservative and the anti-commie in Cuba is the liberal.
This study is really flawed or at least the interpretation that CNN is trying to present is just flat out wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.