Another study linking political views with intelligence

[drebo]

I'm not sure of the merits of THIS particular study, but the wholesale rejection of the basic premise is kind of confusing. Does it seem logical that intelligence plays no part in forming political opinions, or that all political ideologies are equally attractive to intelligent people?

However, I will say that it's fairly common in political discussions to hear the word "intellectual" used as a slur, which is probably not a great way to attract intelligent people to your cause.

I think it's fairly safe to say that it's impossible to know or to tell.

However, one could potentially say that, statistically, as the sample size approaches infinity, an "intelligent" person is just as likely to lean left as they are to lean right. Why? Because political ideology is as much a matter of whim as it is rational thought.

Once again, it is not possible to quantify, thus it is not possible to draw any causal relationship between the two. It is entirely arbitrary.

As this study has, and many others have, shown, though, there is a correlation between various groups of people and their ideologies. For instance, college educated people in their early twenties are far more likely to lean left. On the other hand, people who are older or have had to start working earlier (forgoing college educations), tend to lean right. It is, however, nothing more than a correlation. There is no causation.

 

[Taejin]

Political ideology is a matter of whim? I don't really buy that.

As this study has, and many others have, shown, though, there is a correlation between various groups of people and their ideologies. For instance, college educated people in their early twenties are far more likely to lean left. On the other hand, people who are older or have had to start working earlier (forgoing college educations), tend to lean right. It is, however, nothing more than a correlation. There is no causation.

Seems like some people fail at reading comprehension... The study analyzed the same group of people over a uniform time interval. This was not a old person vs young person study.

 

[drebo]

Political ideology is a matter of whim? I don't really buy that.



Seems like some people fail at reading comprehension... The study analyzed the same group of people over a uniform time interval. This was not a old person vs young person study.

/sigh.

Some people will just never get it. And you're trying to tell me that liberals are smarter? YOU are proof that this "study" is bullshit.

 

[Taejin]

/sigh.

Some people will just never get it. And you're trying to tell me that liberals are smarter? YOU are proof that this "study" is bullshit.

What did I say that was so wrong to provoke this response from you?

 

[seemingly random]

Another take on the same study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?

 

[Chaotic42]

I wouldn't. I would say a conservative is someone who does not care about those who do not directly benefit themselves

It's amazing how far the words used in the political arena get from their original definitions. In my wildest dreams I would never define the word conservative anything like you do. Where did you get that from?

 

[MJinZ]

It's amazing how far the words used in the political arena get from their original definitions. In my wildest dreams I would never define the word conservative anything like you do. Where did you get that from?

You should read the thread for answers to your question. A better post would be a something a bit more substantive, like how you would define liberals or how you would define conservatives.

 

[Chaotic42]

You should read the thread for answers to your question. A better post would be a something a bit more substantive, like how you would define liberals or how you would define conservatives.

So you don't have an answer?

 

[MJinZ]

So you don't have an answer?

The answer is in the thread. If you're going to waste space with no substantive contribution, I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself.

 

[Deudalus]

Another take on the same study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?

Another huge issue that Time Magazine article brought up is that to be quite honest most young people do not understand the difference between a liberal and a conservative.

They identify conservatives as bigoted and evil (generally) and liberals as cool and trendy (generally).

But yet when Obama bailed out all of the banks all you heard from the young liberals is that he is selling out to Republicans and becoming a hard core capitalist and moving to THE RIGHT politically. This obviously shows they have no idea what they are talking about.

If you spoke to any "politically active" youth or listened to any talk radio but especially liberal talk radio during this time you can't really disagree with this.

Republicans of all ages on the other hand complained he was socializing the banking system and moving TO THE LEFT politically which shows they actually know what they are talking about.


This is not to say that those younger liberals are GENERALLY stupid and the study is wrong.

This is simply to say that many liberals are ignorant of the political spectrum and where a certain political act would fall in the political spectrum.


I would suspect that if someone polled a large sample of college students the VAST majority would identify themselves as liberal because it is trendy but they would not really understand liberal views vs. conservative views on anything but the most simple of issues.

 

[shira]

Oh, the irony: A thread filled with utterly moronic posts by conservatives desperately trying to convince themselves that they're really not as stupid as science has determined them to be.

 

[Atreus21]

"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.

That's interesting to me.

I read a study awhile back on spousal infidelity. In the quoted sentence, if you replaced liberal with women, and conservative with men, you'd have the conclusion they came to.

I don't know what that portends.

 

[Atreus21]

Oh, the irony: A thread filled with utterly moronic posts by conservatives desperately trying to convince themselves that they're really not as stupid as science has determined them to be.

Whereas we have plenty of evidence that the liberals are desperately concerned with being total assholes.

 

[MJinZ]

That's interesting to me.

I read a study awhile back on spousal infidelity. In the quoted sentence, if you replaced liberal with women, and conservative with men, you'd have the conclusion they came to.

I don't know what that portends.

You're insinuating that it's manlier to be a conservative. Grow a pair please.

 

[Atreus21]

You're insinuating that it's manlier to be a conservative. Grow a pair please.

So, what if that's true? So then the question is whether that's good or bad.

Manliness can be very good and very bad.

 

[FaaR]

They identify conservatives as bigoted and evil (generally) and liberals as cool and trendy (generally).

"Evil" is a very subjective term, I'm not sure how many ACTUALLY think that conservatives are in fact EVIL, such as in wanting to do wickedly nasty things pretty just for the sake of it.

Bigoted, sure. There's tons of humongously bigoted people on the right, people who think they have the right to legislate how people should live their lives. Oh, they're all for freedom - sure. When it comes to owning guns, that is. But they don't want you to be allowed to marry whomever you want for example, oh no. Men should only marry women, and women only men, no exceptions. Heck, some conservatives even want to legislate what men and women get up to in their own bedchambers.

What's next, women not allowed to wear pants anymore?

Still, it's far too extreme to claim atheists, and/or liberals are more intelligent than those who are religious and/or conservative. I'm not even convinced we even have a proper measure of intelligence - IQ tests definitely do not measure intelligence that's for sure - so how such far-reaching conclusions can be drawn I don't understand. It seems to me some people behind this study may want to make headlines for themselves in the media...

 

[Deudalus]

Bigoted, sure. There's tons of humongously bigoted people on the right, people who think they have the right to legislate how people should live their lives. Oh, they're all for freedom - sure. When it comes to owning guns, that is. But they don't want you to be allowed to marry whomever you want for example, oh no. Men should only marry women, and women only men, no exceptions. Heck, some conservatives even want to legislate what men and women get up to in their own bedchambers.

What's next, women not allowed to wear pants anymore?

Dude I completely agree.

That said I do hope that you realize the left in this country has no problem removing people's rights either. They just want to remove different ones.

Both sides are bigoted, both sides are fear mongers, and both sides have no problem pissing on the Constitution to meet their goals when they get right down to it.

They are just peeing on different pages, that's the only difference.

 

[woolfe9999]

A point of clarification on that definition of "liberal" versus "conservative" that is being discussed/critiqued in this thread. The entire issue is totally moot because these were not the definitions used in correlating IQ with political view. There seems to be a misunderstanding about this particular paper written by Kanazawa, which is unfortunately reinforced by inaccurate media reporting. Kanazawa's "finding" was not that liberals have higher IQ than conservatives. He did not gather the actual data. The data on IQ and political world view was gathered in two surveys that Kanazawa had nothing to do with. In those survey's, "liberal" and "conservative" were not based on Kanazawa's definitions. They were based on self-report, i.e. a question is asked, "are you a) very liberal, b) somewhat liberal, c) moderate, d) somewhat conservative, or e) very conservative." So the actual "definition" is not specified. It is whatever the test subject understands those words to mean.

Kanazawa's paper does not conclude that liberals have higher IQ than conservatives. That information was already out there. Rather, Kanazawa's paper is an attempt to explain the IQ disparity. In his attempt to do so, he profers his own definition of liberal and conservative, probably because those definitions fit his pet theory to explain the data: that high intelligence correlates to moving away from evolutionary imperatives. Since altriusm is an evolutionary advantage only when applied to those with familial ties, if he defines liberalism as extending altruism to the broad community, this supports his underlying thesis. There is a valid critique of his thesis, however, that he has defined "liberalism" in a way that is convenient to the conclusion he draws. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the correlational data that undergirds his study, which is the real point of controversy in this thread.

Case closed on that particular issue.

- wolf

 

[Blackjack200]

A point of clarification on that definition of "liberal" versus "conservative" that is being discussed/critiqued in this thread. The entire issue is totally moot because these were not the definitions used in correlating IQ with political view. There seems to be a misunderstanding about this particular paper written by Kanazawa, which is unfortunately reinforced by inaccurate media reporting. Kanazawa's "finding" was not that liberals have higher IQ than conservatives. He did not gather the actual data. The data on IQ and political world view was gathered in two surveys that Kanazawa had nothing to do with. In those survey's, "liberal" and "conservative" were not based on Kanazawa's definitions. They were based on self-report, i.e. a question is asked, "are you a) very liberal, b) somewhat liberal, c) moderate, d) somewhat conservative, or e) very conservative." So the actual "definition" is not specified. It is whatever the test subject understands those words to mean.

Kanazawa's paper does not conclude that liberals have higher IQ than conservatives. That information was already out there. Rather, Kanazawa's paper is an attempt to explain the IQ disparity. In his attempt to do so, he profers his own definition of liberal and conservative, probably because those definitions fit his pet theory to explain the data: that high intelligence correlates to moving away from evolutionary imperatives. Since altriusm is an evolutionary advantage only when applied to those with familial ties, if he defines liberalism as extending altruism to the broad community, this supports his underlying thesis. There is a valid critique of his thesis, however, that he has defined "liberalism" in a way that is convenient to the conclusion he draws. However, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the correlational data that undergirds his study, which is the real point of controversy in this thread.

Case closed on that particular issue.

- wolf

If that is indeed the case, than the article is extremely misleading:

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.

 

[werepossum]

I'm always amused at "science" that purports to prove that those who seem totally unable to provide for their own education, housing and health care without government help (i.e. robbing someone - anyone - else for their own benefit) are somehow smarter than the average bear. Perhaps liberals have become so intelligent that they can no longer function in our world? Or perhaps it's more likely that science once again produces self-serving studies.

 

[woolfe9999]

If that is indeed the case, than the article is extremely misleading:

It's misleading only in one way: that the various articles have headlines suggesting that Kanazawa suddenly discovered the correlation. As your own quote states, he looked at extant survey data. Some of the articles make that even clearer than this one. Some even link the particular surveys. IIRC, he isn't even the first one to spot the correlation in that existing survey data. But even if he was, it isn't really important because his paper is about explaining why there is a correlation, not about the fact that there is correlation. The fact of the correlation is evident already in surveys he did not conduct.

In any event, it is tangential because the important point is that who is liberal and who is conservative was determined by survey questions which asked people to self-identify their political views, not on Kanazawa's definition of liberal. Those surveys asked people if they considered themselves liberal or conservative. They did not ask about altruism. Accordingly, I'm afraid these arguments about Kanazawa's definition of liberalism, regardless of their merit, are off point here.

FYI, the two surveys Kanazawa relied on were the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and the General Social Survey. Google them if you're curious.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm always amused at "science" that purports to prove that those who seem totally unable to provide for their own education, housing and health care without government help (i.e. robbing someone - anyone - else for their own benefit) are somehow smarter than the average bear. Perhaps liberals have become so intelligent that they can no longer function in our world? Or perhaps it's more likely that science once again produces self-serving studies.

The surveys don't correlate economic success, or use of government services, with IQ. They correlate IQ to political philosophy. I am afraid you are confusing a liberal, i.e. someone who might believe in welfare, with an actual welfare recipient. You are confusing it, or purposefully distorting the point at issue.

- wolf

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Bigoted, sure. There's tons of humongously bigoted people on the right, people who think they have the right to legislate how people should live their lives.

How odd.

That's exactly how I see the left.

You will be forced to buy health insurance.

You will be forced to use the proper cooking oil for french fries and fried chicken.

You will be forced to use less electricity (unless you're algore etc).

You will be forced to use less gasoline.

You will be forced to not smoke (via "sin taxes") and all other manner of govt control over your body.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

How odd.

That's exactly how I see the left.

You will be forced to buy health insurance.

You will be forced to use the proper cooking oil for french fries and fried chicken.

You will be forced to use less electricity (unless you're algore etc).

You will be forced to use less gasoline.

You will be forced to not smoke (via "sin taxes") and all other manner of govt control over your body.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Fern

That's how I see the left too, but he's got a point in that the right too has fallen in love with using the power of government to control behavior. The right wants to control everything you do, and the left wants to control everything you do and everything you think too.

We need a "Government should leave me the hell alone unless something really really bad happens to me" party. A party that doesn't care if Biff is smoking a Marlboro or that Neil and Bob are smoking the baloney pony. A party that doesn't care if you're as fat as Michael Moore as long as you pay the increased health care costs. A party that says you can buy as much house as you want and burn as much electricity as you want, but you get no government loan guarantee, no subsidies, no tax breaks, and no bail-outs. A party for freedom.

Wolf - I was intentionally emphasizing that part of the electorate that demands things from government NOT because they are unable to work, but simply because someone else has more. To an extent that is satirical, but with at least half of all US households receiving some sort of government check each month it also has a large element of truth. Welfare as such is a small part of our entitlement society.

 

[woolfe9999]

How odd.

That's exactly how I see the left.

You will be forced to buy health insurance.

You will be forced to use the proper cooking oil for french fries and fried chicken.

You will be forced to use less electricity (unless you're algore etc).

You will be forced to use less gasoline.

You will be forced to not smoke (via "sin taxes") and all other manner of govt control over your body.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Fern

Your touche here does have merit. However, I would point out that there is a distinction between the government interference that liberals will often support and the government interference that conservatives will often support. Laws which prohibit or restrict sodomy, oral sex, adultery, polygamy, gay marriage, reproductive decisions, etc., fall into a zone of personal privacy and intimate choices/behaviors. Laws which regulate energy efficiency in appliances, for example, do not. The laws are imposed on industry, not consumers. The distinction is important - although the industry regulation may limit consumer choices, it does not allow the government to barge into your house and inspect your appliances.

So you're right, both support government interference, but in very different ways.

- wolf