Another study linking political views with intelligence

[Jaskalas]

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily

That's a load of crap. Before modern civilization religion helped drive literacy rates higher. That no longer applies due to the school system, but before that it had its uses.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Religion did not drive literacy rates for more than a select few.
For a long time it was a crime to translate the Bible from Latin to any other language so that people might actually read it. People were required to go to a priest for any answers. One of many examples.

 

[cubby1223]

"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."

Say what? So they are defining "conservative" as "someone who only cares about the well-being of blood relatives"? Sorry but if that is the premise, then the study is bullshit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Say what? So they are defining "conservative" as "someone who only cares about the well-being of blood relatives"? Sorry but if that is the premise, then the study is bullshit.

Of course it is, however the reason things get posted like this it to illustrate how superior the OP and those who think like him are.

Remember the other thread that said that those with a lessened sense of self were religious because of it and that was due to brain damage? Well if one is less self centered, then they are more likely to be aware of the needs of others. If a liberal is defined as someone who is concerned about those needs then he is also less self centered, and that means he's brain damaged.

Science is awesome!

 

[MJinZ]

So you believe some random psychologist?

Hahhahahha... textbook here. "Belief" as if scientists are the non-religious equivalent to deities.

 

[MJinZ]

Everything. These "smart" people perverted the scientific process to fit their political agenda. They were celebrated as being "smart" because what they proved was what the "progressives" wanted them to prove not what the data proved.

Where they really as "smart" as the "progressives" like to claim or did they cheat to look smart....



Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank are Senators?
When did this election happen?

Didn't the article say they were conservatives and libertarians?

 

[MJinZ]

Ok, everyone has high levels of smartness on the internet, but I'll risk saying that on that I'm a bit over 4 standard deviations above the norm. No doubt it's a mistake saying that, but I'll take that chance.

Should I consider someone stupid who doesn't share my views? No, it means I was born lucky with the ability to learn and pull together concepts from different disciplines and live in a "large" world. It doesn't make me better than anyone else any more than having been born into a wealthy family does.

Now the most obvious flaw in this are the definitions. In essence, if you care about others you are liberal and if you do not then you are conservative.

I can pick that apart in so many ways, it's comical. First, it mentions private resources. Very well.

There are a great many in people right now who out of their private resources are working around the clock in Haiti. Guess what? A whole lot of them are from churches taking money from their own savings to fly there, buy materials etc. That's about as private is it gets. A great many are also against what they would consider invasive government practices. Most (not all) would be pro life.

So they are demonstrating that they will help others at the risk of their own safety, take of their own resources, not even from other charitable organizations.

By using the definition provided, the most liberal and intelligent people are the most generous church goers who oppose abortion and large government programs in general.

I disagree. Churches are tax exempt, and their incomes comes from donations. They are are NOT PRIVATE.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I disagree. Churches are tax exempt, and their incomes comes from donations. They are are NOT PRIVATE.

Read what I wrote, not what you wanted to see.

There are a great many people right now who out of their private resources are working around the clock in Haiti. Guess what? A whole lot of them are from churches taking money from their own savings to fly there, buy materials etc. That's about as private is it gets. A great many are also against what they would consider invasive government practices. Most (not all) would be pro life.

I'm talking about people who are getting together and NOT using church funds. This is over and above whatever they give to the church.

 

[MJinZ]

Say what? So they are defining "conservative" as "someone who only cares about the well-being of blood relatives"? Sorry but if that is the premise, then the study is bullshit.

Can you lay out a convincing argument as to why that definition is bullshit?

It is very difficult to define Liberalism and Conservatism, however if you take that a fundamental difference between them and equate them, you can get at least a correlation.

There is a lot more to being a liberal and being a conservative than just treatment towards blood relatives and strangers, but from a scientific standpoint, you want to isolate one variable that can help define the issue, and not a whole crap load of them which would make a study like this impossible.

Now as I view conservatives, this definition is not that far off. Ask yourself this:

What policy do you support as a conservative that doesn't DIRECTLY BENEFIT YOU OR YOUR PALS.

Conversely, ask liberals that same question.

 

[MJinZ]

Read what I wrote, not what you wanted to see.

I'm talking about people who are getting together and NOT using church funds. This is over and above whatever they give to the church.

My bad, but how do you know these religious people are conservatives? They are most likely from a liberal church.

 

[Moonbeam]

My bad, but how do you know these religious people are conservatives? They are most likely from a liberal church.

They are also not all interested in the welfare of the people as they are in saving their soul according to their stupid and backward notions. So we will have to define what it means to care about others questioning whether saving souls is done for the other or for self aggrandizing religious belief. I'll help you if I get a place in heaven vs I'll help you because my IQ tells me that the better off you are the better off I'll be in this one world we can see.

 

[WHAMPOM]

That's a load of crap. Before modern civilization religion helped drive literacy rates higher. That no longer applies due to the school system, but before that it had its uses.

Why bring in the Moslems and Jews, 'cause we know when Christians learned to read the Bible they were condemned by the Church and burned as heretics.

 

[Moonbeam]

Probably nothing meaningful in the "real world".

That graph looks quite different, I would say, shifted 10 points to the right.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally Posted by Hayabusa Rider
Read what I wrote, not what you wanted to see.

I'm talking about people who are getting together and NOT using church funds. This is over and above whatever they give to the church.

My bad, but how do you know these religious people are conservatives? They are most likely from a liberal church.

In all fairness you cannot say whether they came from a conservative or liberal church.

But I agree with your thought that liberals tend to feel more social or societal responsibility than conservatives. There have more of that 'look after your fellow being' feeling than conservatives. Conservatives tend to support policies that benefit themselves rather than the general good, hence their opposition to social nets, taxes, wider base for health care, safety regulation and other progressive ideas.

 

[MJinZ]

In all fairness you cannot say whether they came from a conservative or liberal church.

But I agree with your thought that liberals tend to feel more social or societal responsibility than conservatives. There have more of that 'look after your fellow being' feeling than conservatives. Conservatives tend to support policies that benefit themselves rather than the general good, hence their opposition to social nets, taxes, wider base for health care, safety regulation and other progressive ideas.

Yes, which is why I tend to agree with the way the study defined liberalism vs conservatism. Even though it's not perfect, it serves to give a good idea of the fundamental differences between each.

 

[shira]

So you believe some random psychologist?

Ah. You must be conservative.

 

[shira]

the study can be debunked rather easily. If you think harry reid, nancy pelosi, barney frank and chris dodd have any more intelligence than you, then your in trouble.

qft

This clearly shows your own stupidity. You conclude that because specific liberals are (supposedly) not any smarter than average, that means that a broad statement that the AVERAGE liberal IQ is higher than the AVERAGE conservative IQ is false.

Let me provide you with an anaology:

Statement: Days in winter are on average colder than days in summer.

Patranus: That statement can easily be debunked because on December 28th in Los Angeles it was warmer then it was on July 11th.

If you can't see how amazingly faulty your reasoning is, you truly must be a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay-right conservative.

 

[shira]

I wonder just how insignificant a 6 to 11 point IQ difference is. I think that's about the amount above average Jews test, no? Compare Jewish contribution to the intellectual life of the world with their percentage of the total population.

On average, Jewish IQ is one sigma (15 IQ points) above the mean.

Edit: But Patranus would argue: "That statement about Jews is clearly false because I know a Jewish woman who is really stupid."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My bad, but how do you know these religious people are conservatives? They are most likely from a liberal church.

I'm sure some are, however I went with a group a few years back who needed people with carpentry skills and they were socially conservative and personally liberal with their money.

It was a bit weird, but it worked quite well.

Remember that my issue is with the definitions used. They're hardly useful.

 

[shira]

More psuedoscience being passed off as science. As pointed out, people between the ages of 18 and 28 are predominantly liberal, as they have yet to have enough life experience to realize that liberalism is a crock of shit and that the liberal leaders do not actually have the "common good" in mind when they pass their legislation.

I could just as easily poll people between 25 and 50 and find a study which shows exactly the opposite as this. This is why anything having to do with human behavior is pseudoscience and not real science. It is not possible to quantify human behavior. This is a correllation for a very specific group of people. There is no causation in their findings at all.

You're reasoning is faulty:

Let's assume you're correct in stating that older people tend to be more conservative than younger people. So?

You must still compare liberals with conservatives within that older group. Suppose that liberal younger people who move further in the conservative direction as they age are on average less intelligent than liberal younger people who either remain liberal, or who move less far in the conservative direction. And further a similar behavior is true for conservative younger people (the smarter ones on average either become less conservative as they age, or move further right more slowly). If that's true (and I suspect it is), then the average-IQ difference between liberals and conservatives would still hold true.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They are also not all interested in the welfare of the people as they are in saving their soul according to their stupid and backward notions. So we will have to define what it means to care about others questioning whether saving souls is done for the other or for self aggrandizing religious belief. I'll help you if I get a place in heaven vs I'll help you because my IQ tells me that the better off you are the better off I'll be in this one world we can see.

Except that works won't get anyone into heaven according to their stupid and backwards notions. Many do it because they see it as an "love thy neighbor as thyself"act, but it doesn't buy "Jesus Points" for admission. Then again, this world believes that self is the reason for the world being here. Perhaps they are fools indeed.

 

[Colt45]

More psuedoscience being passed off as science. As pointed out, people between the ages of 18 and 28 are predominantly liberal, as they have yet to have enough life experience to realize that liberalism is a crock of shit and that the liberal leaders do not actually have the "common good" in mind when they pass their legislation.

I could just as easily poll people between 25 and 50 and find a study which shows exactly the opposite as this. This is why anything having to do with human behavior is pseudoscience and not real science. It is not possible to quantify human behavior. This is a correllation for a very specific group of people. There is no causation in their findings at all.

Except the study has nothing to do with the number of people that are liberal or conservative. The intelligence of the group is averaged, not summed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Except the study has nothing to do with the number of people that are liberal or conservative. The intelligence of the group is averaged, not summed.

Objectively, would you say that a literal definition of conservative would be one who does not care of others outside of his or her family? By that standard, people who give to others cannot be Conservative regardless of their political opinions.

 

[MJinZ]

Objectively, would you say that a literal definition of conservative would be one who does not care of others outside of his or her family? By that standard, people who give to others cannot be Conservative regardless of their political opinions.

I wouldn't. I would say a conservative is someone who does not care about those who do not directly benefit themselves. That could be family, friends, connections, or those like them.

For instance, a conservative giving money to the GOP benefits his political party, even if he has no blood relatives working in the GOP is expected.

Similarly, a conservative giving money to support Anti-Gay Marriage also supports his OWN agenda by preserving his own impression of what his marriage is or "should be".

For a conservative, it all comes back on the originator, one way or another.

 

[shira]

Objectively, would you say that a literal definition of conservative would be one who does not care of others outside of his or her family? By that standard, people who give to others cannot be Conservative regardless of their political opinions.

YOU should try reading what is actually written, not what you want to believe was said.

Even the study authors didn't claim that "concern for non-related others" was a comprehensive definition of a liberal. And anyone who really thinks about the definition being used in the study recognizes it does NOT mean that liberals are "concerned more about others" than they are "concerned about their relatives."

No, the "definition" actually being used is that - for the purposes of the study - a "liberal" is one whose RATIO of "concern for others" to "concern for relatives" is high; and conservatives are those whose ratio is low.

This is an abstract definition, and it's a fair one. Clearly, no one factor can differentiate all liberals from all conservatives - there's way too much overlap. So a simple test is being used as a proxy. Pick it apart all you want, but you can't get away from its validity.

Pointing out there are conservative individuals or conservative groups that are "liberal" by this test is just playing the anecdotes game. Surely you're intelligent enough to see the flaws in your own reasoning.