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 ...
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.
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.