mocktwinkles saidSo it seems that "conservative" [wedge social issues aside] tendencies [while more evolutionarily primitive] inevitably tend to preserve civilizations and their
identity while "liberal"[modern usage of the word] tendencies lean more towards a lack of emphasis on distinction of identity and hence greater chance of nationalistic collapse due to a higher level of open-mindedness (generally stemming from greater raw "intelligence") and overall lack of desire for competitive tribalism. So out of all the smart people in the world or a particular civilization (certainly a minority), the conservative ones are a minority within a minority (majority of intelligent people are liberal) but seem to be able to bridge the gap in that they are able to think beyond the philosophically intellectual aspects and realize the overall realistic picture (primitive survival of the fittest ideas that kick in when we are usually in times of crisis like, "feed and help my own family before yours", "take it for us before they get it", etc) and therefore decide to be "conservative" despite their general tendency to understand the beauty, compassionate longing for a John Lennon world, but ultimate idealism, naivety and decay of the liberal way.
I would assume that, in times of crisis and shortage of food, someone with a liberal mind would be probably be more apt to share food with neighbors or other anonymous people even though they increase the chances of the food running out and everyone dying -- more tolerance for uncertainty. A conservative, being more fearful of food running out and dying would probably only share the food with people they consider most or more important depending on the severity of the situation ( "their family" or "their people"). Ultimately the conservative side is probably the selfish side but the most likely to survive. In a famine I'd probably rather find a liberal who has some extra food to share than a conservative, lol! Extremes of too much "conservatism" or too much "liberalism" isn't good. We need a balance of both -- but I say, slightly more emphasis on survival rather than extinction. Although, extinction is probably a lot less stressful! lol
PURE CONVOLUTION !
mock, The above paragraphs are one tangled mess.
Consider rereading the article and then composing your conclusions in bullet-points. You might be able to see where you are contradicting yourself.
If you'd like to point out where I'm contradicting myself, why don't don't you do it?
I'll try to elucidate my points in an extremely simple format, just for you:
1. Most smart people tend to be liberal -- of course that doesn't even mean that most liberal people are at all smart.
2. Liberal ideas, while generally requiring more intellect are evolutionarily inferior for survival because they are morel likely to be so open minded that they discard ideals which form a cohesive nationalistic unit of "people" (think of concepts such as "protect our lands from those people and keep our nation and people strong and proud of who we are" -- liberals don't think that way at all). A liberal would be likely to say "we need to help all of the disenfranchised people of the world and make sure they have clean water". A conservative would be more likely to say "We need to worry about our own situation first and the challenges we face otherwise we won't be able to help anyone else!".
3. Conservative ideas, while more primitive, tend to forge new civilizations, hold civilizations and nations together through a distinctive separate identity, nationalism and degrees of tribalism. These are ingredients that liberals completely disdain. They would prefer the world without borders and everyone with love in their hearts for learning about how other cultures are "maybe doing it better". A liberal would be more likely to say something like, "they have a better system than we do" than "we are the best nation and people in the world". Put those ideas on a grand scale and ask yourself which one fosters competitiveness and which one fosters defeat.
4. While most smart people tend to be liberals, the minority of very intelligent conservatives (a minority within a minority), while completely able to understand and even prefer the liberal point of view (they just know it's idealism), realize the survival implications and ultimately the naivety and decay of the liberal way because of oversight -- oversight of those instinctive ideas which usually manifest themselves in times of distress or when an economy collapses.