Just bumped into this article from Psychology Today: Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 4:42 AM GMT
    here's the link to read the article......

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives


    Edit: Fixed the link....just for southbeach1500. See...liberals can learn from their mistakes. icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 4:43 AM GMT
    I thought it was obvious. Why'd they need to write an article about it?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 12:24 PM GMT
    moscowmikey saidhere's the link to read the article......

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives



    fixed for you.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 12:32 PM GMT

    "It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.


    Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

    The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

    Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

    Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

    Political%20ideology.jpg

    Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.


    "The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

    Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives. Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints.

    Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

    "
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 12:32 PM GMT
    Pretty funny when the basic premise of the article is flawed, but the facts completely undermine and indicate the opposite conclusion.

    From the article:
    It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.  In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs.  Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

    I bolded the flawed logic. The author without justification makes the assumption that the conduit for helping lies with the government, and that a person's generosity is measured by willingness to support the government programs. There have been numerous studies comparing the generosity of conservatives versus liberals, when generosity is measured by how much a person contributes voluntarily versus advocates others do the heavy lifting.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

    http://brighthall.aol.com/2008/12/22/study-conservatives-more-generous-than-liberals/

    There are other studies I have shown in the past that relate to other mental characteristics that differentiate conservatives and liberals on an aggregate, statistical basis, but that is another topic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 12:40 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidPretty funny when the basic premise of the article is flawed, but the facts completely undermine and indicate the opposite conclusion.

    From the article:
    It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.  In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs.  Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

    I bolded the flawed logic. The author without justification makes the assumption that the conduit for helping relies with the government, and that a person's generosity is measured by willingness to support the government programs. There have been numerous studies comparing the generosity of conservatives versus liberals, when generosity is measured by how much a person contributes voluntarily versus advocates others do the heavy lifting.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

    http://brighthall.aol.com/2008/12/22/study-conservatives-more-generous-than-liberals/

    There are other studies I have shown in the past that relate to other mental characteristics between conservatives and liberals, but that is another topic.




    Did you not read the article all the way through?

    I bolded the end [part that explained exactly what you said.

    WHY won't you finish reading something before you react? How often do you have to demonstrate your failure to reach through to the end?

    The article suggests it is an intelligence limitation. Perhaps Conservatives cannot learn this.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 12:40 PM GMT
    I don't know if I agree that liberals have the higher IQ?? Possibly the liberals are more accepting and open-minded; does this have to do with a higher IQ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 12:45 PM GMT
    I will repaste forsocalfitness:

    "The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes."



    It's a lot of words, I know, but it is the response to your comment. You must have missed it when you read the article at the link (:lolicon_smile.gif but then of course you saw it again when I repasted it in to the thread for the benefit of the ones who would be too intellectually lazy to click the link.

    Then I bolded the sections that I expected the Conservatives would ignore icon_lol.gif.

    And you still missed it.

    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_exclaim.gif



    Maybe you could get someone to read it to you? icon_wink.gificon_lol.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 12:48 PM GMT
    vincent7 saidI don't know if I agree that liberals have the higher IQ?? Possibly the liberals are more accepting and open-minded; does this have to do with a higher IQ?


    You have to read the article. There is a correlation between childhood IQ assessment and how the adult identifies their leaning.


    The chart is also posted in this thread.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 12:49 PM GMT
    Upper_Canadian said...Did you not read the article all the way through?...

    Yeah, I did. And it was nothing but an unsubstantiated attempt to explain away the facts that materially undermine the basic premise of the article. The last paragraph is also a feeble attempt to support the premise by referring to the media control, also without supporting data. Also amusing to see liberals claim influence in the media to support the assertion of creativity and intelligence, yet deny the same facts when refuting bias in the media.

    One might also read a response by Shawn T. Smith, Psy.D., linked from the same page as the article.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 1:04 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Upper_Canadian said...Did you not read the article all the way through?...

    Yeah, I did. And it was nothing but an unsubstantiated attempt to explain away the facts that materially undermine the basic premise of the article. The last paragraph is also a feeble attempt to support the premise by referring to the media control, also without supporting data. Also amusing to see liberals claim influence in the media to support the assertion of creativity and intelligence, yet deny the same facts when refuting bias in the media.


    They fully substantiate the claim with the data - and it is the second to last paragraph that explained it . I know you saw theshiny reference to media control by liberals and got tunnel vision and only saw the last paragraph.


    you really do live up to every stereotype: too dogmatic to listen to a 4 minute clip because you flipped out in the first 30 seconds with the rhetorical setup;

    dismissive of published studies, and you completely ignore what it actually says and keep seizing on the trivial (like a toss of closiong paragraph) to ignore the substance of the text. When corrected, you get even more defensive instead of saying - "oh yes, that does answer my comment."


    That WAS the direct answer to your comment, wasn;t it? Will you admit that?

    Probably not - you cannot even admit prima facie evidence or dictionary characterizations of your dogmatism preventing you from listening.


    The growing recognition is is that the biggest problem in America is the extreme bipolarization, and you are perfectly representative of that.




    go on prove me wrong: can you admit that second paragraph fully addressed you complaint? Can you display even that minimal degree of integrity and honour?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 1:07 PM GMT
    "Also amusing to see liberals claim influence in the media to support the assertion of creativity and intelligence, yet deny the same facts when refuting bias in the media


    I have never heard of Liberals complaining Liberals dominate those industries - that is the claim of the right Wing - as it even says in the sentence.

    Please cut and paste the sentence, then I will bold it for you. I'm totally fed up with your ridiculous game. you disgust me.

    You cannot be as stupid as you are acting (and this MUST be an act)

    I keep making the mistake of thinking everyone has a degree of honour and honesty and interacts here with sincere integrity. Just because the Americans I went to school with were the best your nation has to offer, I realise now I am no longer in a European private school with the vey best of you. I had a very unrealistic view.

    I was taught Americans value integrity and elevate truth (I grew up in the shadow of the Cold War and them lyin' commies - that is what the Americans taught us ) - so it is sad for me to see America become eveyrthing that all those proud servicemen were defending the West from becoming and our teacher held as the lamp of enlightenment and freedom that America supposedly stood for.


    That is where I gained my respect for Americans and got the impression of a great nation of great people 4 years I was indoctrinated to love America. Half that time on RJ opened my eyes to the fact I was among only the smartest and most diplomatic back then- families chosen by their government to represent their nation to their global allies. They were not representative at all.


    My teacher Mrs Elder would have humiliated you before the class for the mistakes you have made. She had high standards and ran the honour Societies.


    Were you NHS or NJHS by chance?


    Did you ever hold the candle?


    I am guessing - NO.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 1:21 PM GMT
    Guys - if you do read this article, strongly recommend you read the rebuttal by Shawn T. Smith, Psy.D., linked from the same page as the article. His comment also links to another site where there is a more substantive discussion on the flawed logic behind the article.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 1:45 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidI thought it was obvious. Why'd they need to write an article about it?


    To plant the seed of the myth, that Liberals are smarter; OMG I almost pissed myself from laughing so hard at the thought; liberals are not short of narcissists either.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 2:29 PM GMT
    Boxing people into terms of "conservative" and "liberal" and then trying to determine intelligence is plain stupid. I consider myself both liberal and conservative depending on what issue is being discussed.
  • Bigolbear

    Posts: 528

    Aug 29, 2011 2:52 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidBoxing people into terms of "conservative" and "liberal" and then trying to determine intelligence is plain stupid. I consider myself both liberal and conservative depending on what issue is being discussed.


    +
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 3:19 PM GMT
    I think a more likely answer is that kids who have a higher IQ when younger probably tend to get more opportunities for higher education and there are many studies showing that more higher education tends to liberalize people. Therefore, higher IQ kids end-up more liberal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 3:29 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    moscowmikey saidI think a more likely answer is that kids who have a higher IQ when younger probably tend to get more opportunities for higher education and there are many studies showing that more higher education tends to liberalize people. Therefore, higher IQ kids end-up more liberal.




    there are many studies showing that more higher education tends to liberalize people

    Yes!



    The real question is why.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 29, 2011 3:50 PM GMT
    moscowmikey said
    southbeach1500 said
    moscowmikey saidI think a more likely answer is that kids who have a higher IQ when younger probably tend to get more opportunities for higher education and there are many studies showing that more higher education tends to liberalize people. Therefore, higher IQ kids end-up more liberal.




    there are many studies showing that more higher education tends to liberalize people

    Yes!



    The real question is why.


    I would assume because the more educated you are, the more you understand the world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2011 2:07 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidBoxing people into terms of "conservative" and "liberal" and then trying to determine intelligence is plain stupid. I consider myself both liberal and conservative depending on what issue is being discussed.


    Maybe You mean depending on whose ass you are trying to kiss for your own benefit?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2011 2:10 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    moscowmikey said
    there are many studies showing that more higher education tends to liberalize people
    Yes!

    The real question is why.
    The spirit of inquiry and the refusal to accept authority automatically is a liberal trait. Curiosity is linked with intelligence; conservatives tend to be incurious, being satsified with what they know (or think they know.) This is why their opposition to anything often takes the form of pretending that their view represents "common sense" and the opposing view does not. Appeals to "common sense" are just another form of relying on tradition, and tradition is relied on automatically by people who are incurious about alternatives. Their preferred method of displaying this lack of curiosity is scorn, which only demonstrates how fearful they are of alternate possibilities.

    Is it also a liberal trait to ignore arguments that might contradict a liberal's preconceived ideas? If you don't give a damn about the points I made, I referenced a discussion with a link to a site that offered a strong rebuttal to a very weak article presented in the OP. But a few of you chose to completely ignore that and discuss explanations that could support a fundamentally flawed paper. So actually, who are the ones who are incurious, being satisfied with what they know (or think they know)?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2011 2:37 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said If you don't give a damn about the points I made, I referenced a discussion with a link to a site that offered a strong rebuttal to a very weak article presented in the OP

    Don't flip out. I didn't ignore you, I simply didn't read most of the thread. As to the points you made, I have no idea what they were. I used that "Down to bottom" button.

    OK, if you are inclined, suggest a perusal. As you know, BS dressed up in a bar chart is still BS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2011 2:41 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    Upper_Canadian said
    Political%20ideology.jpg


    So even in the most intelligent group, the average IQ is just 106?

    I'm going to be too scared to sleep tonight.

    Here's a 2004 article by the same author when he determined that "Beautiful People Are More Intelligent"

    http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/I2004.pdf


    Need to see the original data. (The error bars are suspiciously small)
    The discriminant (political leaning) is rather loose, which probably explains the relatively small difference between "very liberal" and "very conservative."
    (A much better discriminant would be "belief in creationism.")
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 30, 2011 2:47 AM GMT
    Time gives the 2 sources of his study:
    http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/add_health_study.cfm
    http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/

    Interesting comment (pertinent to real jocks lol):

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.htmlSo are liberals smarter? Kanazawa quotes from two surveys that support the hypothesis that liberals are more intelligent. One is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which is often called Add Health. The other is the General Social Survey (GSS). The Add Health study shows that the mean IQ of adolescents who identify themselves as "very liberal" is 106, compared with a mean IQ of 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative." The Add Health study is huge — more than 20,000 kids — and this difference is highly statistically significant. (See the top 10 scientific discoveries of 2009.)

    But self-identification is often misleading; do kids really know what it means to be liberal? The GSS data are instructive here: Kanazawa found that more-intelligent GSS respondents (as measured by a quick but highly reliable synonym test) were less likely to agree that the government has a responsibility to reduce income and wealth differences. In other words, intelligent people might like to portray themselves as liberal. But in the end, they know that it's good to be the king.

    The jury may be out on whether conservatives are less intelligent than liberals, but there's evidence that they may be physically stronger. Last year, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a fascinating paper by Aaron Sell, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides of the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The authors measured the strength of 343 students using weight-lifting machines at a gym. The participating students completed questionnaires designed to measure, among other things, their proneness to anger, their history of fighting and their fondness for aggression as a way to solve both individual and geopolitical problems.

    Sell, Tooby and Cosmides found that men (but not women) with the most physical strength were the most likely to feel entitled to good treatment, anger easily, view themselves as successful in winning conflicts and believe in physical force as a tool for resolving interpersonal and international conflicts. Women who thought of themselves as pretty showed the same pattern of greater aggression. All of which means that if you are a liberal who believes you're smarter than conservatives, you probably shouldn't bring that up around them. You might not like them when they're angry.


  • ZacktheMan

    Posts: 340

    Aug 30, 2011 2:52 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidBoxing people into terms of "conservative" and "liberal" and then trying to determine intelligence is plain stupid. I consider myself both liberal and conservative depending on what issue is being discussed.


    And that is as it should be. Every issue must stand on its' own, An idea or argument is not valid simply because it came from a liberal. or from a conservative.