Okay, ladies and gentlemen: no need to paint the lily here. This story from CNN speaks for itself:
Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ
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.
The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.
So… brilliant analytical insight or a steaming load of codswallop? Read the whole thing and then let’s have your overnight thoughts here.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
182 Comments
One word: PETA.
Nuff said.
Want another?
Algore.
How bout a third?
Rosie O'Donnell.
Maybe an encore?
Whoopi Goldberg.
Dumbest. People. Ever.
All liberals.
To be concerned about total strangers and to attempt to alter their conditions for what one believes to be the better, IMHO, means projecting one's beliefs and behavioral expectations onto people about which one knows absolutely nothing believing that one has the perfect answer for everyone, and that they should accept one's interference once they understand how freakin' intelligent the meddler is.
That requires assumptions based totally in the abstract, rather than in concrete experience. That kind of attitude seems completely irrational if one wishes to have predictable outcomes.
I've been given to believe that the more intelligent one is, the more rational one is likely to be. This study, if my take above is correct, gives liberals far more credit for their alleged intelligence than my real life experience indicates.
Well, just because your IQ is higher, it does not make you smart. Just because you happen to be able to read faster or solve higher level math equations with ease, does not make you smart either. These book smart people are almost always world dumb. So, I will take my slightly lower IQ and be a smarter person in the real world.
So being a liberal atheist means you do stupid things that get you killed off before you can reproduce.
They needed a study to determine that?
<Ba-dum DUM>
No wait, it means being conservative and having faith show that you are disadvatanged, and thus are entitled special government set asides to equalize the playing field and what not.
Affirmative action now!
Seriously though, so what? Blah, blah, mean variation, blah, blah, inherent biases, blah, blah, incipient racism, blah, blah, blah.
Oh, and don't forget eugenics. Obviously this has to do with evil progressive eugenics pseudo-science, even if a libertarian and and a conservative did the research. I am shocked, shocked I say!, to discover CNN endorsing something that reeks of eugenics.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by theUSAilove: CNN Overnight Thread: Liberals, Atheists Are Smarter Than Conservatives; They Sing Better, Too http://bit.ly/au3ojZ...
I hate to admit it but some of my favorite musicians are liberals.
My IQ is 154 and I'm a right wing extremist, so there.
You can tell the guy who put this together was a whipped male. Sexually exclusive men, in other words guys on a short leash, are smart but women, who apparently screw around on those men, are smarter still. HA!
They say Obama is an "intellectual", does that mean he's "grounded in reality smart."..Obviously not, he got to the place he is, because he is slicker then all the other so called "intellectuals" who are so without economic common sense, they elected him President.
It all goes back to the dumbing down process in the schools. As long as the liberals have control of the "educational system", we will always be fending off the Econ101 illiterates who think the are the smartest in the room…
I'm not sure I have a complete handle on this Obama Intelligent"/ "smart" thing, but it's a stab at it…
Well your stupid ass just got busted…
LOL
There is a longstanding anecdotal negative correlation between IQ and wisdom. I do not know if there has been a good study looking into that. One issue is, as has been noted by liberals as well as others, IQ measures only certain types of mental functioning. It appears that having an unbalanced amount of that type of mental functioning as opposed to those that appear to generate wisdom/common sense is dangerous.
Never fear. The IQ test is not jsut purely objective when it comes to measuring how effective your brain is. It also is sensitive to how well you've adapted to the desired outcomes of those who designed the test. Such microscopic differences in test scores have nothing to do with real cognitive ability. Liberals are just people who've decided that they are smarter than history and reject the known truths of history, in favor of the unproven theories of the self proclaimed elites. In other words, once you reach a point where the temptation to believe yourself smarter than others – and therefore WORTHIER than others, you then become smart… but stupid. Not that questioning of status quo is wrong. It is not. It is how we advance. Rejection of historical lessons is what makes a modern liberal into a self delusional elite, who believes in the theories of their intellectual peers despite the lessons of history.
1. Atheism has dominated popular culture for the better part of the last century, and only recently has there been a renaissance of sorts in Theistic philosophy. So, Atheism is the dominant intellectual mood of the best thinkers.
2. Conservatism is not like other philosophical positions; that is, it is not a series of deductions based on a set premises that are taken as a given. Rather, it is a set of principles that "hang together". Because it is not like the former, the strictly analytical mind cannot accept it. There is something a tad bit irrational about conservatism in this sense which, paradoxically, some have argued is part of its sanity, its efficacy.
3. Modern Statists, Marxists, Progressives all suffer from the same tragic miscalculation; they attempt to fit human nature into their elaborate intellectual framework, as if plotting a geometrical figure, forgetting that humanity is wild and fierce and free…
Then political correctness is their cancer.
I KNOW THIS IS LONG BUT READ IT ANYWAY.
Well classic liberalism could be linked to IQ, but not modern liberalism. The classic liberal is more of a modern Libertarian (which I happen to be). "Liberal" comes from the Latin word for free-man, a man who is not obliged to follow the orders of another man. Modern Liberalism is not ,in fact, "Liberal." Rather than promoting self-reliance, it promotes interdependence and most especially dependence upon the the State. Now why would an intelligent man surrender his liberty unto the State? Your guess is as good as mine. Most of the "Liberal" policies I have seen in my short time on this planet (I'm only 19) rely upon emotion and a sense of moral obligation (universal healthcare, constant raising of the minimum wage, etc) rather than logic and reason (follow the Laffer Curve, create a government that is small and flexible rather than large and incapable of rapid change). So in my mind if "Intelligent" people identify themselves as "liberal" it is out of intellectual laziness.
As a great man once said, "A man chooses, a slave obeys."
Republicans earn 65% more college degrees than democrats do, every year since 1955, both the men and women.
["Democrats and Republicans.. Rhetoric and Reality," Joseph Fried, 2008.]
If Democrats could just keep up with Republicans there would be no national debt, and social problems would be nil.
It's not even counter intuitive, it's obvious — it's why democrats need free stuff from the government. If they stayed in school and out of jail we would all be much better off and be a lot closer to their Utopia. Their stupidity is what is holding us back.
.
I dated a girl that went on to the U. of Texas where she earned a degree in chemical engineering and an MBA.Make $250,000 plus a year working at Lyondellbasell in Houston.
In "real life"- dumber than a box of rocks.
My sister-in-law has a Masters in Education. I hafta explain movies to her.
'Sigh' – self gratifying crap like CNN flagellating itself with stories like this says way more about them than it does about me – or us.
You mean, the socialsits/progressives/communists,being smarter than everyone else, all subscribe to a system of government that is known to fail and does not work? Also all of those MSM types who have shown themselves to be mainly liberals/progressives/communists, are the same ones of "superior intelligence" who have been spewing out lies and propaganda, and reveal themselve to be more dishonest and hypocritical than anyone else. And that all of these people who claim to have intelligence, are in a constant and losing battle with the truth? That would also then include Hitler, Stalin , Pol Mot and of course Chairman Mao. I do not know how smart you have to be to create the failed state of Castro's Cuba. If all of these are the best and brightest results of "superior intelligence" why are so many of them on the wrong side of history? It seems that someone is confusing intelligence with stupidity.
Liberals think that flushing trillions of dollars we don't even have down the toilet somehow "stimulates" the economy. They still insist socialism, despite it's many catastrophic failures, is the way to go. They also believe disarming the USA will make the world love us and the world will finally be one big groovy hippie love-fest if we do. I could go on and on about the absolute moronic liberal system but I would like to get some sleep before Tuesday.
I just read this CNN report…..quite amusing. It reminds me of a CNN report I recall watching back in 2004 (I think it was) that stated that a new study revealed that liberals were "generally" better educated that conservatives.
That such BS passes for "news" is amazing.
"They say Obama is an "intellectual" with a high IQ…" ya…I'm not buying that load.
I wouldn't hire that fool Obama to represent me in traffic court. "Ah, er…ummm well, ya know..duh der…."
The whole study is BS. I have a doctorate and several undergrad degrees, one in Psych, and this is more self serving blather to give socialists "moral authority" to make our decisions for us and I don't care if this nincompoop says he is a conservative. Prisons are full of stupid High school drop out atheists.
Republicans earn 65% more college degrees than democrats do, every year since 1955, both the men and women.
["Democrats and Republicans.. Rhetoric and Reality," Joseph Fried, 2008.]
If Democrats could just keep up with Republicans there would be no national debt, and social problems would be nil.
And It's not even counter intuitive, it's obvious — it's why democrats need free stuff from the government. If they stayed in school and out of jail we would all be much better off. Their stupidity is what is holding us back and socialist governments give them an excuse to keep mooching and being stupid.
.
A Savage is a doctor (MD) right?
which explains why Marx has continual life on college campses(i)…
BS!
….But not smart enough to stop insulting the american public on a major news network Interesting… This "I will insult you and you will thank me for my brilliant insight!" attitude. Very counter-intuitive. Quite clever. Lousy politics though..
Junk Science. The oldest people in this study were 28. I was much more liberal when I was 28. People with high IQs will explore a lot of ideas when they are young, then with experience they see what ideas work and what ideas don't, and they become more conservative. Staying liberal as you grow older, is a sign of low intelligence. As Winston Churchill said, "Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
I wonder, the people behind the research, how do they identify? Also, what was the selection process, and how was I.Q. determined? These types of studies are far too easyily to manipulated. I need to know more about the researchers to know what type of agenda (if any) they may have.
http://www.crooklynconservative.com
I wonder, the people behind the research, how do they identify? Also, what was the selection process, and how was I.Q. determined? These types of studies are far too easyily to manipulated. I need to know more about the researchers to know what type of agenda (if any) they may have.
http://www.crooklynconservative.com
Oh ya, not you. I missed infered that comment. He is the "Head Dolt in Charge" – you got that right.
What the hell is "sexual exclusivity in men?" Is this a new term for homosexuals? These guys sure spend a lot of time thinking up new names for themselves. Here, let me help…
Butt Buddies
Rump Rangers
Colon Commandos
Ok, ok, I know, they are not new.
At a biker tattoo contest, the winning biker had tattoos of Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi on his butt. Biden was on the left cheek, Pelosi was on the right cheek and Obama was in the middle.
Obama Jokes
http://usataxpayer.org/?0062470846
Dr. Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals
http://usataxpayer.org/?0028068146
I'll believe that when I see his transcripts. I'll bet both his transcripts and his IQ don't match up.
Get productive. Name calling time is over.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/extraordinary-co...
Here's a little background on the author of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa
Beat me to it!
Good point.
Lets stop the blame game.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/extraordinary-co...
I've traveled with a couple lady engineers, highly techicnal outstanding indivuals (easy on the eyes too), could not a one read a road map…
LOL
Hey…..!
I have a Plumb and three Estwings. They're kinda offended.
….and they didn't vote for Obama either.
My DeWalt power nailers are kinda liberal tho….
They don't want to work all the time.
hee hee, yup. can't drive an automatic and – well – do anything else.
She came to me after she graduated in tears.
"Whaaaaa, I want to work for Lyondell in Houston but this offer from – whomever (don't remember, Chevon maybe) in Surfside is better"
I took the two offers and looked at them. She had miscalculated the Lyondell offer, it was slightly better. She jumps in happiness and takes the Lyondell offer. Duh.
no, Ph. D. : EducationPh.D., Nutritional Ethnomedicine
M.A., Anthropology
M.A., Ethnobotany
B.A., Sociology and Education
Gentle Readers,
Satoshi Kanazawa is a psychologist, and has no particular expertise in the field of biological evolution. This is why the study makes such glaring errors such as creating a correlation between a subjective political viewpoint and a biologically determined absolute such as individual genetic charactaristics.
Kindest Regards to all,
I am,
John Lepant
Brighton
Colorado
98ZJU
Remember, he was graded on the Wonderlic Curve Scale…Everybody gets an A…Unless you show Conservative leanings…
When your "world view" is way off kilter, like BO, your decision making process will be dangerously scued, off base, and ineffectual..
I do believe it's been showing….
Fortunately, these geniuses always have somebody to tell them what to do….
CIVET S**T AND MONKEY SPIT or THE PREDIGESTED POLITICS OF THE COFFEE PARTY
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/civet...
Everyone get out your BS Flag and start waving! I give this study two weeks till it's debunked.
98ZJUSMC- Thanks for the Wiki link… It helped to put the study in perspective
Lets say the study is right… I know, I know- but, just imagine. I'll take my 6 to 11 point lower IQ and the liberals can keep their 6 to 11 point higher IQ along with their elitist attitude and self righteous activism.
I could write a very long response to this one, but I'll try to keep it short. After 40 years in the business world, I've seen the same invasion of the "intellectual, highly degreed" that have taken over the government. Most of them were more worried about their career path and didn't even have a basic understanding of a problem let alone how to solve it, but they spoke right buzz words to make themselves appear to be intelligent and were promoted up the ranks. We all knew they were dumb….. We've seen how that's worked out for businesses and our country.
I never have judged a person on their IQ or college degree, but would rather judge them on WISDOM and values they demonstrate in their daily lives! My grandfather was a coal miner (many, many years ago) and was one of the wisest men I every met! He would have been a better CEO or POTUS than the crap we have now.
I have a Ph.D., and an M.S. in Civil Engineering. And guess what? I'm conservative on most issues. Winston Churchill, a conservative, may be the greatest political mind of the twentieth century.
The most liberal demographic are blacks and latinos. Yet they fail miserably academically. This is a bogus study.
The rabidly Democrat mother of my neighbor friend was at our house having coffee, endlessly bragging about how brilliant her son was. Finally, Mom could take it no more. She said: "My son's IQ is over 150!" My friend's mother demonstrated defective liberal listening skills and said: "Oh, my Gary's IQ is over 115 too!"
In a few weeks or months someone will leak the truth about how this " study " was tweaked by an Obama associate to bring desired results ala the global warming debacle. Funny, if liberals are so smart, why couldn't they decipher the truth about the irrevelent and fraudulent methods used to manipulate the data the way us hayseed rednecks who could see through the farcical charade did ? The test was probably sloppily slapped together by some smelly pseudo-intellectual Ivy League leftist with oily desheveled hair who is in a deep depression over the loss of his lone source for living, Howard Zinn.
Sounds like climate gate.Suppress or manipulate data to force desired result.
They do this everywhere.Is this just false playground ammo for libs to use or possibly for new uplifting website banner for commie sites?Most know they lose when it comes to substance.I can see some commie using this when u beat them down w/facts – "but this study shows I'm smarter than.Whatta think about that?"
They print and run stuff like this because the only people that watch,read,and believe them are there minority of zombies.So its really a little piece of indoctrination.
2 of the left's mottos are – Repeat it enough and people buy it.The end justifies the means.
These fallacies are just temper tantrums imo.
♪ ♫ ♪ Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything. Better than you. No, you can't. Yes, I can. No, you can't. Yes, I can. No, you can't. Yes, I can ♪ ♫ ♪
Stupid Liberals…Joy Behar comes to mind!
If arrogance, unmitigated gall and aggressive assertions of opinions equates to higher intelligence – so be it. So far, the only edge any liberals have shown in my experience is their ability to be rude, unable to listen to others and to hold tightly to their sources as the only logical conclusion. Maybe higher IQs equate to dogmatic.
You left out…Joy Behar, Michael Moore, and a growing cast of thousands
What's that old joke about the actual meaning of PhD.
Push
Here
Dummy
While not from Missourri, I say Show Me the IQ results, so far the CFB* President hasn't demonstrated anything except to "low expectation" liberals.
*CFB: Compact Flourescent Bulb, expensive, kinda dim, toxic (contains mercury) and it a B****H to clean up if it breaks.
I agree. This study is so flawed. One glaring omission that I noticed was how did each participant define liberalism and conservatism and were all respondents asked if they agreed with aspects of the other ideology? Another is did they all take the same IQ test? How about, were they all from the same region?
Some peopel may actually be conservative, but agree with parts of classical liberalism and vice versa. As any real researcher can tell you, the IQ score means absolutely nothing without knowing what test was completed. Lastly you can test groups from a poor area and groups from a more wealthy region and skew the data however you want.
All in all this study is about as useful or relevant as used toilet paper. I wouldn't stress out over it.
And these are the same people who say that homosexuals are born that way. No science, just interpretation of data from social studies.
I'll just repost what I said on another blog:
People who are very smart are resistant to propaganda. The smartest among us are a combination of libertarian, conservative and classically liberal.
The dominant form of propaganda for the past few decades is liberalism and progressivism. Your modern garden variety liberal, although smart, doesn’t reach an IQ threshold for propaganda resistance and is brainwashed. Sorry, you have my condolences.
The elite liberal propaganda disseminators, like in our media, are very intelligent but they’re not really liberal. They have an agenda to achieve power, it’s not because they think modern liberalism is the correct way to live. They can just escape their destructive policies. Not forever though.
Thankfully an increasing number of brainwashed liberals are awakening and freeing themselves of the chains of liberal oppression.
Funny how the left-wing media likes an IQ study because it flatters them. Otherwise they avoid IQ like the plague if it doesn't fit into their social engineering agenda. Why is that left-wing media? Hmm?
IQ 160 believe in God, guns and freedom (can't spell) NANANANA
OK, that's it.
I finally went down to the lab and took the Krell brain booster. Imagine my surprise when I found that I had doubled, permanently doubled my intellectual capacity! HA! I solved time travel this morning and am working on a workable interstellar hyper-drive this week. In my spare time, I built a robot that is beyond the combined resources of earth's sciences. Child's play. I now have an officially11 registered IQ of 379.
Furthermore, I have determined that ALgore is a rock, socialism doesn't work, Detroit is a lost cause, Obama is a marxist, Reid and Pelosi are vampires, the New York Times will cease to exist by 2015 and liberalism is a causation of a genetic defect which can be cured with a sustained dosage of reality. There!
Now, anybody seen my Ju-Ju-Bees?
Perfect, You get the gold star OldGeezer. These liberal pointy headed elitists live strictly in the world of " what if "and "what could be"as opposed to " what was" and "what is". An example is the IAEA and the Iranians, granted there are other spokes in that wheel, but the hub I feel is made up of people you describe.
God Bless our Troops
God Bless America
John Stewart, Bill Maher, David Letterman and Jeneane Garafolo…
First, IQ tests in large part have no defined idea of what they are testing. While I personally tend to do well on these tests and score highly, that is probably because they tend to test the categories that hit my personal strong points.
Vocabulary, memorization skills and problem solving abilities are highly scored. But the correlation to "intelligence", or success-based outcomes, is very weak.
If the test has an internal bias for or against a behavior, then concluding that the behavior "proves" intelligence is a boot-strapping fallacy. In the case that CNN is trumpeting, the test has a bias for attaching atheism, for example…to intelligence. 95% of the world is not atheist. The sample size of "very religious" vs. "not religious" in relationship to intelligence is incapable of being adequately measured, but less interpolated.
Similarly "liberal" or "anarchist" or "socialist" or "communist" ideations are no more well defined that "suicidal" ideations. (although they may be correlated in precisely the same way as this ridiculous study….those who tend to have wild stray thoughts, and show heavy evidence of narcissistic disorder are also very more likely to consider self-destructive behaviors and anti-social behaviors and pathological behaviors, than say…those who conform to societal norms such as loyalty, patriotism, piety, humility, and grace)
In point of fact, a narcissist may use the charade of "caring about strangers" to quench a thirst that is never sated, the "Look at me, aren't I wonderful", a manic trait demanding constant attention and affirmation, due to a raging inferiority complex, manifested in faux arrogance, smug and pedantic affectations and the need for a trophy, prize, award, or gold star for the most modest of achievements.
The need to be in "permanent revolution" is merely the arrested development of the "maturity evolution", that calming and advancement of wisdom….something that most others go through normally, does not happen in the "show pony" personality. There is a definite lack of maturity, leaving one stuck in adolescent rebellion well into adulthood, complete with the teenage pimples and blemishes and the attitude of "anything goes", sex, drugs, rock and roll, cake for breakfast, candy for lunch.
The narcissistic disorder sufferer often develops a "showcase" skill. Pretending to be someone else for a lifetime attracts them to theater, stage and entertainment vehicles, where they invent awards, prizes, "gold stars" to give to each other. It also attracted the same people to "soft" academia, fluff courses that allowed for the enhanced ability to BS, but with no other valuable applications to society.
And, historically, to entrenched post modern journalism. (not alternative media, which tends to be a socializing event and investigation of truth in large part)
Post modern Western journalism is a plague of narcissistic disorder, with prizes and awards for the ability to conform to a pre-ordained "message" or ideation or fixation on being "better" and speaking down to others. Giving people "false but accurate" stories, explaining that their "class" needs to "show" others how to lead a life.
This hubris is typical and often raging within the narcissist and they will "display" even after coming out of rehab, on their eighth marriage, and having contracted a series of diseases. It's not tied to common sense. Quite the contrary. Narcissists despise common sense and wisdom. The whole of their existence is to make up a contrarian argument out of nothing more than the wisps of rational thought, in order to "prove" their particular "genius".
They become so skilled at doing so, that even the most ridiculous of notions is argued as if it was sane. They then create prizes for themselves and parade around with them glistening in the footlights for all to see.
Leftism isn't a sign of higher intelligence. It's a mental disorder.
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq02.htm
I believe I've found the basic flaw in this study, even though I've not read the study. It should be obvious to anyone. It misdefines liberal by redefining it, or grouping it for purposes of its hypothesis as also being atheist, in addition to being liberal. Atheists, as a group, comprise far less than a majority of liberals, even in England, perhaps only 10% of the overall population is atheist. I don't know which percent of atheists are also liberal, neither does this study purport to show. So now we are talking about a much smaller subset of a population in comparison to larger section of an opposing group, namely conservatives. Another words, this is not an accurate representation of a controlled population; thus, you have a skewed population for purposes of this study. For instance, what if I found that conservatives that have read the entire Tolkien series had higher IQ's, what would that prove about conservatives in general?
I've read about other studies that found no difference in IQ or education level, between conservative and liberal, while I've seen tons of studies that put "conserveratives" in a negative iight, and often those studies are sent straight through the "liberal press".
my experience is life is the smarter the person the more contempt for God, it's related to pride. I have known very intelligent theologians, who are mainly priest. But, it's been my experience (especially with family members) that there are no atheist on their death bed (I think because of humility at the end).
A combination of traits are ideal. Common sense, Wisdom and Scholastic. It's difficult to attain and nurture the first two when your buried in books and sheltered in a Ivory tower.
"sexual exclusivity in men" i.e. Pocket Protector, Alfalfa hairdo and bad breath.lol
The logic behind this study is absurd. What's the line of reasoning? Evolution, by a series of natural processes, supposedly weeds out elements that are deterimental to the species, and thus to society. Therefore, those that fly in the face of that are "more evolved/intellectually advanced?" One might as well argue that a genetic tendency towards suicide is evidence for being more evolved. The guy kicked the chair out from under him is therefore, clearly, more "advanced" than those breather Neanderthals who wanted to go on living. After all, an inherent proclivity for offing oneself would be detrimental to the species…and evolution is about getting rid of what's detrimental…therefore those that have it are more evolved? Did they out-evolve evolutuion?
Actually they now can determine general intelligence by studying brain anatomy.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-02/ci...
I believe I've found the basic flaw in this study, even though I've not read the study. It should be obvious to anyone. It misdefines liberal by redefining it, or grouping it for purposes of its hypothesis as also being atheist, in addition to being liberal. Atheists, as a group, comprise far less than a majority of liberals, even in England, perhaps only 10% of the overall population is atheist. I don't know which percent of atheists are also liberal, neither does this study purport to show. So now we are talking about a much smaller subset of a population in comparison to larger section of an opposing group, namely conservatives. Another words, this is not an accurate representation of a controlled population
A tragic irony if there ever was one. Man's ultimate demise rooted in his intellectual ability would seem to fit the profile of many of the "elitest" ideologues whose brain droppings are usually at odds with or contra to survival.
yeah just look at rick sanchez.. 9 meters equqls what in feet.. so much for the above study.. dems = duhhhhh
I am so dumb I actually had the thought "what if evolution was only theory and not fact explaining all things?"
Crazy, I know.
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER {MICHAEL SAVAGE] !!!!!!
Check out an ultra-cool three minute conservative podcast at: http://www.cashbeechcroft.podomatic.com
Hosted by the King of Conservative Rock. Conservatives can't sing? This guy can.
"Evolutionary psychologist" That says it all, he probably uses the climate modeling computers and programs at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Matt Damon, Sean Effin Penn, Susan Sarandon and Danny "Copenhagen caused Haiti Quake" Glover
I once was a very smart (or so I thought of myself) Democrat liberal. As fate would have it, I long ago asked myself a political/historical question (I forget about what) that I could not satisfactorily resolve by reference to my liberal orthodoxy. The answer required me to think outside the box I had constructed around my thinking. When I came up with the beginnings of an answer I discovered I was no longer that oh so smart liberal. I was on the way to becoming a stupid conservative. I think this is a path taken by many, many conservatives. This is how we become stupid. Only liberal logic would reach this conclusion.
I should have said above that, "This is how we become stupid, by thinking for ourselves." Only shows my conservative stupidity.
Excellent.
These are the same fools that have been screaming for decades that IQ is meaningless, and that IQ tests are 'culturally biased'. I'm more convinced now than ever that Liberals collectively suffer from narcissistic personality disorder. There are many credible scientific studies that prove it. One example is an excellent book written by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., M.D., a 40 plus year forensic psychiatrist: " Dr. Rossiter reveals…Modern liberalism's irrationality can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche…[and is] a massive transference neurosis acted out in the world's political arenas…" In any event, this newest liberal tool / tantrum, is just another specious 'study' by leftist propagandists. We've seen it a million times. The left wants specific policies, and they invent a study to lend credibility to their beliefs. The hockey stick graph comes to mind. And then there's the EPA's myriad of other erroneous findings. And only last week they released a study claiming that smokers were less intelligent. (Einstein smoked, and most of the world's famous thinkers). And hey – remember all those 'scientific studies that 'proved' that black people were something less than human? And let's not forget that their science dictates that men and women are exactly the same. And did you know that abortion improves self-esteem? It goes on and on. It's nothing more than eugenics philosophy. It's old fashioned bigotry.
Republicans earn 65% more college degrees than democrats do, every year since 1955, both the men and women.
["Democrats and Republicans.. Rhetoric and Reality," Joseph Fried, 2008.]
If Democrats could just keep up with Republicans there would be no national debt, and social problems would be nil.
It's not even counter intuitive, it's obvious — it's why democrats need free stuff from the government. If they stayed in school and out of jail we would all be much better off and be a lot closer to their Utopia. Their stupidity is what is holding us back.
I'm MENSA qualified. For those who don't know what that means: My IQ is in the top 2% of the general population.
Being more intelligent means you have the CAPACITY to learn more….it does NOT mean you HAVE learned more.
for me, here is the money-quote:
"The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said. "
Hasn't it been fairly well established that it's the more conservative leaning people who actually give to charity; and the left-leaners who want the taxplayers to supply the money. Remember how much Biden had been giving to charity over the years, compared to G W Bush?
I call FAIL.
Outstanding wldbil, that makes you 20 POINTS (at least) smarter! I betting way more than that.
James
"They" the media and libs in general say it…I obviously don't think so…To me, he is an economic dim bulb, but a "brilliant liberal"…That's the equivalent of being the "head dolt", in" Doltdum"…
Republican Christian right wing, Sarah Palin, Fox news, George Bush, Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck, anti evolution, anti environment, anti intellectual and bottom line shitkickers, the article is right on. Unfortunately they are however, the majority.
Typical Leftist dialectical Enlightenment-driven analysis, superficially elegant, devoid of depth and historically irrelevant. The longitudinal analysis may be accurate in the local realm evaluated given the current demographic trend, but has no credibility being projected as an evolutionary statement (as a behavioral economist and post-structuralist, I constantly find mediocre science that assumes historical consistency or worse, the religion of historical constructivism, being propped up by the journalist class who most likely flunked out of their intro to research methods course).
All this analysis shows, again assuming the very carefully selected minority data set has any relevance, is that the 1990s time series higher-intellect individual (as measured by IQ, which is an exceptionally problematic tool akin to yesteryear's head size measurement) was an individual who found the capacity for creative expression and exploration of their intellectual gifts in an social environment that oriented more toward what we currently define as liberal. During the 90's, I'd suggest that those intellects who were not part of the Internet entrepreneurial explosion were probably hanging out in liberal environments (though the dot-com IQ would probably have been 15-20 points higher than the progressive coffee club scene). Churches in the 90s were not seen as outlets for creative expression, though I'm committing a huge generalization error by considering all churches as equal in their capacity for welcoming creative intellectual expression.
Social movements ebb and flow as do institutions, and through time the capability of a realm to be receptive or rejective of new ideas and creative intellectual participation varies. We see this with the present death of intellectual consistency in the news media and progressive movements; all the original genius left those movements long ago and it's nothing but "wanna-be" poseurs of less than average capability. Of course, the same goes for other legacy institutions as witnessed by the vacuous Megan McCain claiming leadership legitimacy in the progressive-conservative class statist movement.
When I owned a construction trades company, I had a few loudmouth, liberal, atheists who berated the other guys on the crew. Some of these were veterans or just working-class hero types who voted for Reagan, shrugged-off Clinton and rallied behind GHWB when Desert Storm began.
The liberals were relentless in their name-calling and arrogance, so I rectified the situation by scheduling them to work on Christmas Day. You should have seen them line-up for God!
But what about my kids? My wife? (also liberal athiests).
I said, "As atheists, it's just another day. Show-up for work or be fired!"
Naturally, I would never have fired them, but they never harassed or acted smug in front of their coworkers again.
It was classic. Liberals are as hypocritical as they come. (And don't get me going on how inherently racist they are!)
I believe most of the libs I've met must rely heavily on Viagra as well.
Yeah, did you hear that we have 57 states…. Who knew?
Dr. Kanazawa has consistently been guilty of taking a subjective measure such as attractiveness and linking it to some quantifiable number. He once had a study that stated attractive people have more female offspring. But who decided who was attractive and who was not?
This study is no different. We do not have any truly reliable measure for intelligence. The results of IQ test can vary from day to day on the same participant. The daily variance is nearly as large as the variance that Kanazawa states between liberals and conservatives. Does that mean that we are inherently smarter or dumber on given days?
Many, many scientists have challenged the value of IQ tests, and rightfully so. They do not consistently measure many different subtle aspects of human intelligence. For example, standard IQ testing has incorrectly given the impression that autistic children are mentally retarded as well. Standard IQ tests have also been shown to display a significant difference based on cultural influences.
The more we learn about intelligence in humans, the more we discover that it is not possible to quantify it in the manner that these tests seek to accomplish. Therefore, the results that Dr. Kanazawa has collected are of little real scientific value and a waste of any money spent to collect them.
Blasphemer!
Next you'll be saying evolution is a religion and not a science. All true, but you shouldn't say it.
Also, Derrida would kick this pseudo-scientist's butt for deconstruction-demanding myths like this screamer: 'It also makes sense that "conservatism" as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.'
Indeed, this must be why we find conservative entrepreneurs and transformational business executives reterritorializing economic and social strata, bringing in what the left screams is violent capitalist transformation (a fancy word for a kind of "change"). It must also be why we find progressives demanding state control over all economic and social institutions in a futile attempt to eliminate uncertainty, change and the natural inclusion of chaos in systems.
Look at all of the liberals on the Hill who are demanding the seizure of Wall Street and the elimination of volatile derivatives markets in a foolish attempt to "control risk and eliminate change" while business conservatives thrive on complex systems. Who — liberal or conservative — dares venture out into entrepreneurial space, compared to who takes a State job inside a monolithic bureaucratic institution? Who dares apply Deleuzian post-structural thought in military or capitalist spaces, compared to who hides behind books and research papers in academia (not even venturing outside to teach the chaos of the undergraduate population)?
The definition "liberal" and "conservative" are useless for meaningful economic and social analysis, especially when both are treated as signifiers related to their dictionary reference. Today's social strata finds liberal/progressive as one who is so fearful of change/uncertainty/chaos that he/she embraces hierarchical Statist control over all aspects of life, while today's conservative can be approximated by Deleuze's nomad, rhizomically functioning in dynamically fluid spaces, responding to change and uncertainty, and shifting with the volatility life presents on a daily basis.
Don't hold your breath for a rebuttal from our mediocre institutional insecure quasi-economist, or the statist uncertainty-fearing progressivist left.
Think I posted this before, but, to restate it once more for the record won't hurt.
Colleges and universities are quite adept at churning out legions of highly intelligent, well-educated, productive members of society that are quite incapable of knowing their own asshole from a hole in the ground.
Meanwhile, the unwashed masses they sneer down upon may not have the staggering intellect of their liberal peers, but that wild card of common sense more than makes up for the difference.
After all, there are some ideas that are so dumb, only a highly intelligent person can believe them.
You forgot "Dookie Ranger" and "Ass Bandit"
Reading his statistical logic and analytic responses, I believe he would concur that the average married person has one tit and one ball.
I work on machines in many schools. After doing this job for over 20 years I have come to an odd conclusion. The higher the level of education, the lower the level of common sense. If I see a phd behind a persons title, I invariably have to take longer explaining why something went wrong. As opposed to explaining what I did to correct it.
Now, reason would dictate that is not a bad thing. Asking why could be construed as forward looking. However, unless the person asking is a design engineer, its an exercise in futility. Much like our education system has become…..
For the record, my IQ (128 by the Wechsler testing system) is above the national average (90-110 by the Wechsler testing system) yet I only have a high school diploma. My mother, a masters mentor, is amazed that I never went on for a degree. Do I need a degree to improve what God has given me? Does my lack of a degree make me less intelligent? CNN can go away and, with their ratings, they just might….
Now that libs are on the run, you mean? Are we to change the rules now that Barry's luster has diminished?
I think not.
What's good for the Bush is good for the Obama.
The whole line-up at MSNBC, led by that paragon of idiocy, Keith Olbermann.
IQ tests measure how well you can do on an IQ test. Has nothing to do with a person's overall intelligence.
The study is an interesting one , but its definition of "liberal" is not the same as what Americans (or Europeans either for that matter) would understand by the term.
They define "liberal" as being more concerned for the welfare of strangers and "conservative" as being more concerned for the welfare of family and friends. Obviously this is a very narrow definition which is good for a scientific study. It is misleading to use the words "liberal" and "conservative" to describe this definitions however, and I suspect this has been done so as to gain more publicity for the study.
Finally, as conservatives/libertarians we should not be surprised even if leftists turned out to be on average more intelligent, as they have a stranglehold on academia. Being smarter, however, does not make you right.
You must be logged in to post a comment.