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.
We need to read the article. It’s clear that the conclusion isn’t very strong and it in fact calls liberals unnatural in evolutionary terms. In other words liberals will lead themselves or all of us to extinction.
But the study is still flawed on the IQ part since they appear to only study through age 28 and they started with kids in High School. So what about the kids that didn’t attend school? You know the ones that are wanting to live off the government? Plus everyone knows kids in college are going to be liberal until they get a real job and realize how wrong they were. Often that takes men into their 30’s to realize because they need to have some kids to support before they wake up.
Rather be a dumb ol’ Christian then the smartest atheist in the universe. ;-)
Well my IQ of 140 must mean I'm a genius compared to these people.
See #23
Did he employ that wonderful Global Warming science?
This article is using the terms liberal and conservative differently than we use today and in politics. To them a conservative is someone who doesn’t want change...as stated earlier a supporter of Fidel Castro is a conservative by this view.
And will ascribe all sorts of nonexistent virtues to the total strangers too...and 86% of the time they are 100% wrong.
(I'm into making up statistics today, someday I may be as rich as Al Gore became with bogus statistics)
Remember the Bell Curve?
What a bunch of hypocrites. Ok to look at IQ based on ideology, but not race, sex, etc.
laughing at them hysterically
He stole one of my points :-)
Which actually means they are dumb; if they were smart, they would get advanced degrees in math and physics instead of "aligning" themselves with Marx. Can you imagine a math student aligning himself with Gauss and Cauchy as a way to show his intellectual superiority, instead of actually getting good grades in math? But that's what libs have to do in their bonehead majors. They're too dumb to get good grades even in those. So they allign themselves with mooshy ideas.
Nice observation. Personally I think it should/can be looked at across all those things.
But also the researcher re-defines what liberal and conservative means so even then it's a flawed study.
Riiight! ;0)
Anyone? Buehler?
Scotty!?! two to beam up. There is no intelligent life on this planet. lol
I don’t know if the study take into account to selection issues. Those who consider themselves ‘smart’ and have high IQ may have more pride and confidences that they can do everything by themselves and do not need any independent force outside him/her. They may be attracted to (1) ideas that advocates independence of men, and (2) jobs where such ‘independence’ and ‘ideas’ are nurtured and encouraged, especially in the academia.
Interestingly, the author is a conservative, non-militant Atheist.
Actually I can see math types falling for Marx. From a numbers game communism looks great and should maximize resource production and distribution with minimum waste.
But it falls apart in practice because people are going to do what’s best for them and their family. If your family is starving and you’re a farmer who are you going to feed first? Your family or the state? And now it all falls apart.
Going back to this study...since they stopped at age 28 that means they haven’t really surveyed any people with signficant life experience that have actually raised a kid or maintained a business with employees for several years. So the study is flawed.
That explains it...he's one of the low scoring IQ conservatives that pulled the average down because he has to be pretty dumb to think this is a valid study.
Amen!
You do know the flashlight question from Microsoft, yes?
The ability to be successful on a test is not a predictor of intelligence. Furthermore, according to Howard Gardner (left Harvard for U Cent. FL), there are multiple intelligences). Some disabilities are indicators of extraordinary intelligence, e.g., Cerebral Palsy. Finally, intelligence tests are often indicators of wide-ranging, familial/outer world or real world experiences that have taught deeper knowledge.
The flashlight question is in here....
http://www.sellsbrothers.com/fun/msiview/default.aspx?content=question.htm
“In Defense of Elitism”
William A. Henry (Author) (became a conservative)
http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Elitism-William-Henry/dp/0385479433?tag=dogpile-20
American Liberalism in the Classical sense has nothing to do with the mob tactics and strategies of the hippie dropouts and Chicago mafia types we have now.
I think you both are misunderstanding.
The author I’m referring to is the poster of the Stop the ACLU article debunking the findings.
John Jay Ray is an Australian conservative psychologist.
A truly smart and compassionate person does not go around proclaiming how smart they are. They are instead respectful of others.
Come to think of it, if the definition of "intelligence" is bragging how smart they are, perhaps liberals are "intelligent".
‘The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God.’
‘What think ye of Christ?’
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.