Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent.

|

brains

That's the title of a new study by London School of Economics management professor Satoshi Kanazawa just published in Social Psychology Quarterly. As ScienceDaily explains the professor's findings:

More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history.  Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds….

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel.  So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis.  Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena.  "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa.  This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers.  "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence….

One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.

Is it just me giving in to my confirmation bias, when I suspect that even higher intelligence will correlate with libertarian beliefs?

On a related topic, some may be interested in my 2004 analysis of eariler research showing that conservatism is pathological.

Hat tip to Mark Sletten.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

468 responses to “Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent.

  1. “In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.”

    In other breaking news, the fucking sky is blue!

    1. Well, I don’t know what it says about intelligence, but according to alexa.com, Stormfront.org attracts a more educated crowd than Reason.com. Go see for yourself.

      1. Like IKOC below, I am using this to be way up here.

        Good Morning reason!

        1. I thought conservatives were mentally ill. That was the last diagnosis by the liberal snob-cabal.

          1. depends how you define “conservatives”, I suppose. if you mean, as some do, folks who think invading a secular Arabic dictatorship will reduce fundamentalist Islam, if you think that reducing taxes on capital to zero will have a net positive impact on the economy, if you think that Sarah Palin would make an excellent President, then that means you have a serious dysfunctional relationship with reality, which most professionals would probably diagnose as mental illness of some sort.

            Also, I would aver that faith in economic libertarianism = radicalism akin to fundamentalism religious beliefs. The evidence totally belies the claims. Institutional and behavioral economics have pretty much destroyed any credibility of the idea of a “free” market composed of “rational” decisionmakers that leads to optimally efficient outcomes.

            Facts vs. theory is what the dumbass vs. smartass hypothesis comes down to. Smarter people believe in facts, and adjust their theories when the facts disprove them. Dumber people tend to adjust or ignore facts to twist them into their preconceived theories.

            1. facts show that lower taxes are better for the economy, go look at hauser’s law of economics, it clearly shows that higher taxes do not work (especially those on the rich)

          2. depends how you define “conservatives”, I suppose. if you mean, as some do, folks who think invading a secular Arabic dictatorship will reduce fundamentalist Islam, if you think that reducing taxes on capital to zero will have a net positive impact on the economy, if you think that Sarah Palin would make an excellent President, then that means you have a serious dysfunctional relationship with reality, which most professionals would probably diagnose as mental illness of some sort.

            Also, I would aver that faith in economic libertarianism = radicalism akin to fundamentalism religious beliefs. The evidence totally belies the claims. Institutional and behavioral economics have pretty much destroyed any credibility of the idea of a “free” market composed of “rational” decisionmakers that leads to optimally efficient outcomes.

            Facts vs. theory is what the dumbass vs. smartass hypothesis comes down to. Smarter people believe in facts, and adjust their theories when the facts disprove them. Dumber people tend to adjust or ignore facts to twist them into their preconceived theories.

            1. -100

              Define the terms “optimally efficient” for me, please?

              Or wait, I’ll save you the time: You CAN’T.

              Why not? Cause you don’t know what outcome each of the 7 Billion people on this planet actually are looking for. No one in the crowd of economists I hang out with or respect (and that of most people here) have ever said that people are perfectly “rational” decision makers – but that they act purposefully to pursue a value-driven goal. If you want food, you walk to the fridge. If you want to keep your job, you go to work. If you want to attract the ladies, you try to smell nice.

              Doesn’t mean you can’t make a mistake and say, douse yourself with Axe Bodyspray in an attempt to score at the club. But it does mean that you acted to further a goal which was known to you, and not necessarily to anyone who was not you.

              The “evidence” you are looking for doesn’t fight “libertarian” economics – it conflicts with the strawman in your mind. Nothing more.

              Pff. How’s that for “dumber”?

              1. meh. you’re trifling over nonsense, typical libtard gobbledygook. i wasn’t shitting on economics, i was shitting on the peculiar brand of economics that has taken over the political class in America.

                for starters, there is no such thing as a “free market” (point out one example of a market, let alone a sophisticated market, that doesn’t have regulations imposed by either a governmental body or quasi-governmental body). and when you assume that people can make grossly irrational decisions (e.g., the one moment in time when someone is very depressed and buys heroin and shoots it up), that argues pretty strong against a regulation-free economy.

                so yes, we all go to work and go eat when we’re hungry. that’s not controversial or retarded. what’s retarded is to assume that if we simply abandon markets to “free” decisions of individuals and institutions (which is what I generally understand LIBERTARIAN economics to be, and now i’m awaiting some anal response as to how i’m not defining it correctly), that that leads to efficient outcomes.

                QED, dumbass. QED.

              2. meh. you’re trifling over nonsense, typical libtard gobbledygook. i wasn’t shitting on economics, i was shitting on the peculiar brand of economics that has taken over the political class in America.

                for starters, there is no such thing as a “free market” (point out one example of a market, let alone a sophisticated market, that doesn’t have regulations imposed by either a governmental body or quasi-governmental body). and when you assume that people can make grossly irrational decisions (e.g., the one moment in time when someone is very depressed and buys heroin and shoots it up), that argues pretty strong against a regulation-free economy.

                so yes, we all go to work and go eat when we’re hungry. that’s not controversial or retarded. what’s retarded is to assume that if we simply abandon markets to “free” decisions of individuals and institutions (which is what I generally understand LIBERTARIAN economics to be, and now i’m awaiting some anal response as to how i’m not defining it correctly), that that leads to efficient outcomes.

                QED, dumbass. QED.

          3. “Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is ‘a strong libertarian.'”

            http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH…..tml?hpt=C2

    2. I am commenting on your comment simply because it is near the top and so I will have a greater chance of having mine read.

      The answer to the post stating that Atheists are smarter (but also better in bed, btw) is:

      “Well, of course.”

      1. See prolib’s comment below

      2. I, Kahn O’Clast, “preference for sexual exclusivity” does not conclude better in bed. One person hardly qualifies as a random sample.

        1. Is that really what the study meant by “sexual exclusivity”? It could be sticking with one preference. See the liberal UK vs. liberal US questions from others below.

          1. Yes, sexual exclusivity is monogamy

            1. That is romantic! I like.

      3. I am commenting on your comment simply because it is near the top and so I will have a greater chance of having mine read.
        LOL! Excellent Strategy! Proof of Intelligence!

    3. Frankly, I don’t see a lot of liberals that actually care about other people. They may talk about it, but their deeds to not match their words. They rarely help out in soup kitchens, donate less to charities, more likely to live in exclusive neighborhoods, etc. They overwhelmingly vote for policies that hurt other people, even when it is demonstrated to them that those policies are harmful.

      Another explanation is far more likely. Those with higher intelligence tend towards elitism. And so do progressives and atheists. Thus the correlation. Not all elitists, but enough are that it shows up in the statistics.

      1. “a lot of liberals that actually care about other people…their deeds to not match their words. They rarely help out in soup kitchens, donate less to charities, more likely to live in exclusive neighborhoods, etc.” Prove it.

        1. Agreed; prove it. Anyone ever think that many people donate and feel obligated to volunteer for churches, etc., because of a deep guilt or the need to be looked upon as a “good person?”

      2. But they make it up in other charity/activist voluntary efforts like Save the UN and help the Environment or viceversa

      3. “…donate less to charities…”

        Any study of charitable donations is apt to be biased by two things:
        (1) The non-rich giving to their own church, which is largely not charity but payment for membership in the congregation; and,
        (2) Large contributions by the rich, who are not liberal because they want to protect their rent-collection opportunities.

        “They overwhelmingly vote for policies that hurt other people, even when it is demonstrated to them that those policies are harmful.”

        Right. Demonstrated by hack shops like Cato and Heritage.

        1. The study that Brandybuck (and several others) is referencing looked at charitable giving as a percentage of income. I completely agree with 1, but the study found that rich conservatives were the lest generous group in the country (again by percentage of income donated), followed not very far by rich liberals.

          I think a lot of it can be explained as the rural/urban divide. That is cost of living (some one making the same income in a urban area will spend a greater percentage for similar housing and food) and religion. I would like to see more controlled studies were they give liberals and conservatives 20 bucks and then ask how much do you want to give to this and that cause (hard to do with college students).

        2. hahahahaha…. only conservatives are rent seekers. that’s a good one. you playing all week?

      4. I like your elitism comment. I have known many extremely intelligent people and the one thing they have in common is the confidence to draw their own conclusions,often combined with contempt for conventional wisdom. From there, they tend to go in many directions, serious lefties, libertarians, eco nuts. Almost all, but significantly not all, are atheists.

      5. Soup kitchens? It’s 2010, not 1933. Try volunteering at a food pantry. Where do you live? I’ll find you one. Tell me whether you see anyone who self-identifies as a liberal. I’d bet you would.

    4. I can believe MNG has a 103 IQ

      1. I can believe MNG has a 103 IQ.

        Not me.

    5. Bullshit. Bullshit. BULLSHIT! Librals are idiots and so is the person who did this study. Intelligent atheist, I should think not.

      1. My IQ – 143. Atheist most of life (particularly after combat in RVN), contribute to domestic violence shelter (time & $), contribute to global projects to help others, would like to bitch slap Hannity, Limbaugh, et al. Alice, your eyes must be brown because you’re full of crap and your ignorance reflects your right wing, delusional stupidity.

        1. My IQ – 163. So in my view, you’re still a fucking idiot.

          1. There’s significantly less difference in learning capacity as your IQ goes up.

        2. This blue-eyed Anarchist is in awe of your prophetic powers.

        3. Peter,

          An IQ of 143 must not actually be that smart. If anybody here were really that intellectually honest, they’d have to acknowledge that the smartest of all are agnostic. Agnostics have figured out that the existence of any deity can be neither proven nor disproven. This means that either the absolute belief or disbelief in any deity is an act of faith not intelligence. Plus, you forgot a comma between “crap” and “and”.

          1. yes, but even if you make that arguement, i could argue that my belief in god has no downside. I am happy in this life and im wrong, there are no consequences, I die and nothing happens. but if I’m right then I spend eternity in heaven.

          2. yes, but even if you make that arguement, i could argue that my belief in god has no downside. I am happy in this life and im wrong, there are no consequences, I die and nothing happens. but if I’m right then I spend eternity in heaven.

        4. I resent your slurs against brown eyed people.

    6. Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel.

      Why isn’t more likely to be an evolutionary dead end?

      And since when does telling the government to take money from other people and order other people around, count as “caring” about them?

    7. The new “Master Race.”

      The Nazis did the same thing, identifying themselves as superior to everyone else, and faking studies to “prove” it.

      1. Godwins Law!! You just lost the discussion, democratsarefascist!!!

    8. Intelligence is not the same as wisdom. A wise man is not a fool. What is a fool?

      Psalm 14:1-3 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
      2 The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God.
      3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.

    9. If being liberal means the abdication of your responsibility to friends, family and fellow human beings to the government then I’d rather be stupid.
      If being liberal means disagreeing with everything that is conservative then I’d rather be stupid.
      If being liberal means personally attacking anyone who disagrees with you I’d rather be stupid.
      If being liberal means that you don’t really practice what you preach, you merely preach it I’d rather be stupid.
      If being conservative means that I get to live in a country governed by the people, then I’m proud to be stupid.

      1. lol, what’s funny is if you switch liberal and conservative in every one of your sentences it seems to be more representative of real life. You must be a conservative that doesn’t watch Fox news, you are a diamond in the rough.

    10. Is the sky blue? I tend to see it in orangish colours at the end of the day. I wonder what’s the colour of the sky for those outside Earth’s atmosphere.

  2. What a crock of shit.

    1. Average scores are informative, but only tell us so much.

      I’d have to run the math, but a 6-pt IQ difference on a normally-distributed variable (which IQ is), means that if you place any atheist next to any religionist, 57% of the time the atheist will have a higher IQ.

      1. Ah, statistics. Pity that most people don’t really know what “statistically significant” means.

        If I recall correctly, the IQ scale is calibrated to have a standard deviation of 15 points. Which means that even if there is a “statistically significant” difference of 6 points between the means, there is a huge amount of overlap between the distributions of IQ for the two groups. So there are plenty of right-wing bible thumpers who are brighter than lefty atheists.

        1. There’s also the small problem of IQ never being intended as a measure of general intelligence, but rather as an assessment of readiness for a certain level of school.

          A fact that’s lost in this age of describing extremely complex personal traits by a single number (a la BMI, IQ, credit score, etc).

          1. fun prediction: suddenly the “iq tests proves blacks are dumb!” folk who hang out here sometimes will be all “iq tests require a great deal of context and can’t be expected to measure all things”.

            (studies like these are ultimately meaningless beyond watching TEAM RED TEAM BLUE and related mentalities fight each other. it’s great, if you enjoy the battle action of trainables.)

            1. suddenly the “iq tests proves blacks are dumb!” folk who hang out here sometimes will be all “iq tests require a great deal of context and can’t be expected to measure all things”

              And vice versa, no doubt.

              1. You are saying that the people who have previously claimed that IQ tests require a great deal of context will now say that they prove blacks are dumb? Doesn’t seem to likely.

                1. Nah, that people who used to say IQ tests require a great deal of context now prove conservatives are dumb.

  3. Is it just me giving in to my confirmation bias, when I suspect that even higher intelligence will correlate with libertarian beliefs?

    Your suspisions are correct. People with higher IQs are only more liberal (and more libertarian) on SOCIAL issues. They are more conservative (and more libertarian) on ECONOMIC issues.

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/…..eater.html

    1. Libertarians (big-L ones, anyway) have a belief system that explains everything; they are just as dogmatic (and in the same way) as religious folks are. Actual thinking is hard, and they prefer to avoid it.

  4. Not that it matters or will ever change, but I think the conservative and liberal designation with regards to economics is backwards. I think the old fashioned or conservative position would be to plead with the sovereign for handouts. w/e

  5. …being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel.

    Is everyone in agreement that this is a defining characteristic of being liberal?

    1. Re: Fist of Etiquette,

      Is everyone in agreement that this is a defining characteristic of being liberal?

      No, not at all. In fact, it has been shown that conservative people tend to be more charitable (meaning, caring about people that have no genetic relation to one) than self-professed liberals.

      I have found many liberals to be actually quite unintelligent, incapable of understanding sound economics, ethics, or logic, and also incredibly gullible – as Penn & Teller have shown in their Bullshit shows about Recycling and Environmentalism.

      1. But the liberals care more. They could give more too if stupid conservatives would just stop preventing them from redistributing stolen wealth to its rightful owners.

      2. Actually, isn’t it more than religious people are more charitable, and religion just happens to be a correlate of conservativism? On the other hand, highly religious societies correlate to a number of disfunctions, such as high crime and teen pregnancy rates.

        And btw, I bet I donate a higher fraction of my income and time than almost anyone here.

        1. I make $24k, and donate about $2-3k a year. Also, I volunteer every saturday morning. It’s through a church, but I’m not christian.

          1. None of my liberal friends want to come volunteer with me. I’ve made offers several times. Not when I was in San Diego (and volunteering with mama’s kitchen), not since I have been here (and volunteering with Food for all DC)

            1. I volunteer all the time and part of how I embraced “over here” is from the same thing you saw. They are all like Demi Moore in “St. Elmo’s Fire” at the soup kitchen, without showing up at the soup kitchen.

        2. If you are not counting the part you steal from the rest of us through unneeded taxes you might be right.

          1. Beaten to the punch. Several times this time.

        3. And btw, I bet I donate a higher fraction of my income and time than almost anyone here.

          Why don’t you disclose your income, amount of charitable donations, and time spent volunteering, and we’ll see.

          1. prolefeed, I know I beat you all on this one but I don’t think it is right to judge the circumstances of others. They may volunteer/ give more at another time.

        4. Maybe so Chad, but I have serious suspicions about who you contribute to. Probably not any group I would support.

        5. I bet I donate a higher fraction of my income and time than almost anyone here.

          To what result, shit-head? Charity very often makes people dependents. Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t matter about actual results, only about patting Chad on the back for “caring”.

          Chad: (looks into a mirror) I am good enough, I am smart enough, and dog gone it, people like me.

          1. No one likes you, Chad. You probably count your taxes as charity.

        6. I make 1 million a year and donate 2 million a year; making me the most generous.

          Got to love the interwebs.

          1. liberty_equality_solidarity, we weren’t talking about donations to your local sperm bank.

            1. I only make about a half-mil a year off the sperm bank, the other half is from being a test subject for pharmaceuticals. O and my welfare cheek.

              More to the point, I was only making fun of the sort of claims people make on the interwebs (Chad); particularly on this site where it constant “I have so and so degree, therefor I am infallible” , ” I have so and so IQ, therefor I am infallible ” , etc.

        7. I give 110%. Can you beat that?

          1. Your wrist must be killing you.

      3. Love the show, but P&T don’t “show” anything on their show. They merely suggest in a humorous and totally unscientific way.

    2. …being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel.

      Is everyone in agreement that this is a defining characteristic of being liberal?

      The defining characteristic of modern liberals is how willing they are to spend the money of unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with.

    3. Caring about…….or making a show of caring about…..two totally different propositions.

  6. This is fake, right? A study this useful belongs with these self help books.

    1. LMAO at that list

  7. What will the Libertarian party tout next?

    Libertarian Research shows that pedophiles are more intelligent than the general population?

    1. That’s our zoggy.

    2. Ah underzog and his nonsense “arguments”

    3. Reason libertarians are just cosmopolitan Republicans who smoke pot and want to fuck little kids

      1. And kill Jews, dude. We hate Jews.

        1. Watch yourself! Wouldn’t want something to happen to that warty head of yours.

    4. UnderSchmuck, I don’t understand why you italicized “Research”. Are you more liberal than me, and therefore more intelligent, and that’s why I don’t understand?

    5. She told me her birthday was just a few hours ago and she had ID!

    6. How funny. I thought it was the churches with all the pedophiles doubling as preachers.

  8. In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

    Wait, that’s a non sequitur – how can one conclude that from the previous premises?

    1. In other words, liberals are mutants, and therefore automatically more intelligent.

    2. Just because. You have to believe. Stop being a denier and listen to the professor.

    3. Agreed, evolution “cares” about traits that lead to survival so that the genes can passed to the next generation. Evolutionary novelty in and of itself does not necessarily mean an increase in survivalbility and propagation of the genes. If anything, something that is novel is likely to have a negative effect.

      1. Hard to say that novelty doesn’t have benefits. If the survival of a greater number of humans gives a single person a greater pool of potential mates and they combine that strength of opportunity with good choices it can certainly benefit their own line. I think liberals have the problem of expecting a strength of outcome rather than opportunity despite the poor choices of many people. That is where they fail.

    4. They put that “may” in there. So the concluding sentence actually is completely meaningless.

  9. As I suspected, liberals and conservatives are morons. 106 and 95 are low IQs in my book. As a child mine was measured at 153. I figure Libertarians probably average around that.

    1. All the dope you smoke probably knocked it down below 90 by now.

      1. Sure it kills brain cell, but in true libertarian/darwinian fashion, it only kills the weak ones. :^)

        1. SugarFree or impostor?

      2. Fragg! cell=cells.

        1. You are a typical libertarian

        2. Funnier the first time though!

    2. pfft only 153 ;P

      Yeah those are knuckle dragging numbers if you ask me.

      1. hmm should probably preview first. Maybe ^ has a point. “Those” refers to the 106 range.

        1. Maybe ^ has a point.

          Most microcephalics do…

    3. Two things. First given your self reported genius level IQ, you realize that there is a normal distribution for IQ meaning half will be above, and half below, 100.

      It is, therefore, relatively impossible for any free association sub group without intellectual prerequisites to be too far from 100. Since the standard deviation is 15, if you set the average IQ requirement to join a group at 115 you’d have already excluded more then 80% of the population. At 130 you’re excluding over 97.5%. At 150 you’re talking about less then 1 in 1000 people.

      There are, of course, groups that require a reasonable degree of intelligence to join. These are careers like Scientists and Professors. One would certainly assume that the average IQ is significantly above average in these groups, and not surprisingly, they skew heavily liberal. As you can see in the link less then 9% of scientists call themselves conservative, less then 6% are republicans. If you’re going to say that once you reach the upper reachers of IQ things switch and take a hard right you’re profoundly wrong.

      http://www.alternet.org/blogs/…..y_liberal_(reality_must_have_a_liberal_bias)/

      1. Ah, yes. Of course, when you track down the actual survey, you find that…

        …the online survey of scientists was conducted among a sample of 2,533 members of the AAAS….

        I.e., their “scientists” were drawn exclusively from an association that caters to and is filled to the gills with academics.

        So the survey does a great job of proving that people who evade business, markets, and the real world, choosing instead to be judged by peer-reviewed merit, are more liberal and less conservative, while similarly intelligent people who did not go into academia and join the AAAS remain completely uncounted.

        Shocking.

        1. Depending on the field, competition in academia is extremely fierce. Yes, there is tenure, but you don’t get that until you’ve beaten out several applicants for a tenure-track position, and then over the course of a few years bust your ass getting published to convince your employer that you’re worth keeping around.

          In math, science, and engineering, the competition isn’t too bad, because every college needs professors from those fields, and a lot of those PhD’s are going into industry. In english, history, and philosophy it’s cutthroat.

          1. I don’t deny that competition in academia is fierce and work can be difficult. But it is a different means of judging, where the power is centralized and the judges are the elite. It is very different from business and markets, and it attracts different mindsets. Not surprisingly, those mindsets tend to believe in centralization of power in the hands of elites. I.e., they are progressives.

            1. Do you have any idea how many independent colleges and universities there are in the US? Hint: it’s orders of magnitude larger than, say, the number of independent aircraft manufacturers.

              If you don’t think centralization and the power being in the hands of the elite exist in the private non-academic sector, you’re dead wrong. For the vast majority of workers in every job, advancement depends on pleasing your boss.

              1. I made the same point yesterday that AAAS is predominantly academic and therefore probably skews liberal, relative to all scientists. However, I don’t believe industrial scientists skew right, and certainly not to the degree that would be necessary to offset the leftward skew of academic scientists.

                MikeP: I agree with Tulsa. The mechanisms of scientific power and money are actually a lot MORE disperse in academic settings. Indeed, it is very deliberately set up this way.

                1. While I don’t know whether conservative scientists in industry offset the academics, the trends are strong

                  We found that Republican-voting members of the scholarly associations were significantly more likely to have landed outside of academia. For example, in Anthropology/Sociology, 43% of the Republican scholars were working outside academia, compared with only 24% of Democrat scholars. In History, it was 47% versus 27%. In all six disciplines overall, it was 41% versus 25.

                  The individuals we are talking about here are members of the American Anthropological Association, the American Historical Association, and so on. Most had PhDs. So we find that Republican-voting members of such associations are consistently more likely to be working outside of academia – in government, private sector, independent research, or other.

                  Note that this is still discussing academic societies. Scientists who never cared to join are not included and likely will be even more extra-academically focused.

                  1. Actually, these numbers are sufficient to ballpark the ratio outside academia, at least for these fields.

                    Assuming a 65/35/10 liberal/independant/conservative mix inside academia (a generous one, according to the Pew study), then outside academica one would expect to find 6-7 (10/.59-10) equivalents of conservatives, and 17-18 (55/.75-55)equivalents of liberals. So there would still be a strong leftward tilt in the non-academics. Of course, these fields are probably unusually left-leaning.

                    1. There would still be a strong leftward tilt in the non-academics who belonged to such academic societies. Those who are most extra-academic won’t belong to squat.

                    2. You’re really giving it 110%, as usual.

              2. I’m not being clear. The mechanisms for evaluation, advancement, and prestige in academia — peer review, peer acceptance for tenure, etc. — are based around decisions made by your peers as you all seek to become the elite within your domains. It is quite different from either dispersed decision making or hierarchical decision making, and people who prefer such mechanisms and attitudes or who think they can do well under them will be more likely to seek positions in academia. Others won’t.

                1. For an opinion even further down this line, there’s this

                  I think the explanation for why liberals outnumber conservatives is that they actively like the way the academy is organized.

                  An elite university is like a kibbutz hooked up to an ATM. It is the closest thing we may ever find to a socialist enterprise that endures. The key element of the kibbutz–that the workers collectively decide on the activities of the entity–is hardwired into the university via faculty governance. (The departure from the ideal–that some workers are “more equal” than others–is also evident, in that it is faculty, not employee, governance.) The notion that this is a sensible way to organize one’s professional life is bound to resonate more with people who have a soft spot for socialist, utopian ideals. In my opinion, that you find more liberals than conservatives in the modern elite university is largely (though not exclusively) a reflection of liberals rather than conservatives feeling at home in such an environment.

                  1. I agree MikeP. The grant writing thing is pretty anathema from a libertarian perspective. I don’t believe in begging for money from government agencies. I’d much rather patent things and sell them.

                    1. In practice, the only difference is who you are righting the grants for – senior scientists within your organization, or senior scientists in academia.

                    2. exhibit A of superior intelligence is this superior righting

                    3. Whose “law” is it that pertains to homonym use being an ironic tell on the writer’s mindset?

                    4. In practice the former a half hour presentation with a dozen crappy slides while the latter is 80 pages of mostly redundant tripe. Yet both come from the same amount of original thought.

                      Grants reward capability in grant writing, i.e., excelling in a game set up by your elite peers to become elite peers. In academia, grant writing is how you get ahead. In business, grant writing is seen as a drain on the most productive people.

                    5. I would love to visit the place in the world where the private sector actually functions as MikeP thinks it does. Hell, forget visit, I want to move there.

                    6. To be fair, I only spent a couple years in industrial research. It is possible that my boss turned my presentations and discussions into 80-page proposals that would be summarily rejected if they used the wrong font, but somehow I doubt it.

                      In my experience, one who wants to do research or development and needs headcount for an RA or junior engineer will have to convince his boss and his boss’s boss — who know him and trust him or they would have already fired him — and then they will convince higher ups. There’s no grant proposal that is reviewed and voted on by a committee of peers.

                      Or are you saying that you really think private industry is run like a kibbutz?

                2. I don’t see how it is any different in industry, other than replacing papers with patents and internal invention records. The people who judge my advancement within the company are technical, as long as I choose to have a predominantly technical role.

                  1. I wasn’t referring to writing patents for a corporation. I was speaking of going into business for oneself.

                    Also, even in corporate practice, it’s a lot nicer knowing that your work is earning money because people genuinely want to buy your product, than knowing that you’re getting funded because of some “stimulus” package, or because your bullshitted someone at NIH into believing that your ideas about AI are relevant to healthcare.

    4. According to at least 3 tests (on the internet), my IQ is well into the 150s.

    5. I wouldn’t brag too much about your IQ. Mine was tested at 130, but it’s really no big deal. I think judgement and common sense are much more important than a high IQ. A lot of the people I have met with high IQ’s exibit a serious lack of good judgement and common sense.

  10. Did the longitudinal study questions defined liberal and conservative to the people being surveyed? Is that definition the same one being used by this researcher? Those terms mean so many different things to different people that this exercise seems worthless unless the definition is pinned down precisely.

    1. I’ve seen that error many times in social science research. Political orientation is definitely not dichotomous – and most likely not unidimensional – so it makes no sense to have ask people to rate themselves on a dichotomous variable.

      I’ve lived in three places in the past few years and haven’t changed my political views much. In the first place I was considered conservative, in the second I was liberal, and here I’m libertarian. Go figure.

  11. being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel

    If by “caring about” you mean “stealing from or oppressing”, well, that’s not THAT novel a behavior

  12. “Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid,” says Kanazawa.”

    Is that Gospel, or just someone trying to make his beliefs sound like they’re the result of scientific analysis and not the feverish dreams of the high school reject? I’mma need to see the empirical evidence on this claim of his.

    1. Edit: Because I don’t believe in God, and do not consider myself paranoid, does that make me “not human”?

    2. not the feverish dreams of the high school reject?

      ______________________-

      Im confused

    3. I was about to say the same thing. Personally I’m an atheist, but if you’re going to make a statement like that and claim it as fact, you’d better have some evidence to back it up.

    4. There is no way to possibly back up that statement. “Evolutionalrily designed” is nonsense and doesn’t mean anything scientifically.
      I think it makes sense that we would have evolved with a certain amount of inate paranoia (“wariness” might be a better term) and it is an interesting speculation that this may play a role in our tendency to invent religions. But it is pretty weak to put in a supposed study trying to say something about modern people.

  13. Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans’ tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see “the hands of God” at work behind otherwise natural phenomena.

    Is the author of the study taking into account secular religions, like Statism and Environmentalism, or just the theological ones? Just asking . . . I see no difference between either; maybe he does – and prove he’s also pigheaded.

    1. Didn’t somebody on this blog agree with me some time ago that “secular religion” is the second most annoying oxymoron behind “wage slave”? There’s no such fucking thing as a secular religiarrrrr!!!

      1. Re: Niroti Kawashiro,

        Didn’t somebody on this blog agree with me some time ago that “secular religion” is the second most annoying oxymoron behind “wage slave”?

        It wasn’t me. First, I don’t believe “Secular Religion” is an oxymoron, since religions do not necessarily have to involve a supernatural God. Second, people really do believe in weird things, like we are all going to hell if we don’t stop driving SUVs and other stupid crap like that.

        1. “It wasn’t me. First, I don’t believe “Secular Religion” is an oxymoron, since religions do not necessarily have to involve a supernatural God.”

          Then why not say “atheistic religion”? Or just religion. Secular literally means non-religious not unrelated to a god; so secular religion means “non-religious religion” NOT “religion without a god” (although your mileage may vary whether or not nature excluding humans, Gaia etc doesn’t qualify as a god for environmentalists).

          Environmentalism has all the classic attributes of a religion: all true believers are moral by default and are non-too shy about reminding the rest of us, even if they commit arson and murder in the name of their religion and all the infidels are automatically immoral. All the atrocities throughout history have been committed by non-believers and there can be no morality without the religion and all non-believers must be converted at all costs for their own good, etc, etc and it makes no difference whether a word of the religion it is true based upon historical or scientific facts, it’s true becoz de religun sez it innit.

          Just call it a religion.

          1. Good point. No more “Secular” Religion – it is contradictory. I will just call it “Non theological gullible bullshit”, which describes it better.

          2. I believe the vast majority of people, if asked, would agree that ‘religion’ includes a belief system centered around some sort of divine being or higher power.

            Secular beliefs, such as those espoused by environmentalists, can be pursued with religious fervor, but I believe it is wrong to say environmentalism is a religion.

            1. Re: Mark,

              but I believe it is wrong to say environmentalism is a religion.

              I don’t think so: It has a clear theology.

              a) Man sins (he drives SUVs and uses palstic bags to carry his groceries)
              b) Man wsa banished from Paradise (by living in suburbs and living in McMansions)
              c) Man can repent and atone for his sins (by recycling)
              d) Man can save himself (by embracing Gaia, the only true God.)

              Looks like a religion to me . . .

              1. If you thought about it long enough you’d be able to come up with a long list of analogues. I came up with a short list of the religious aspects of environmentalism that relate to smugness and a belief that they have a monopoly on truth and morality and people that disagree with them, those that haven’t seen the truth, are inferior and are to be treat like subhuman monsters. Yep environmentalism is certainly a religion. Terrorist actions in the name of environmentalism and the related religion animal rights is generally limited to property damage via arson and vandalism but they’ve yet to deploy car bombs.

                Still if you want to see what fundamentalist animal rights activists (and environmentalists) get up to search YouTube for “Penn Teller Bullshit”. Those (literally) foaming at the mouth animal rights whackos are terrifying to watch in action. If you want to see condescension and hypocrisy combined (as we see with the Ted Faggard kind of Christians) see the site PeTA Kills Animals.

                Right that’s out my system. I’ll shut up now.

        2. Don’t forget the power of crystals.
          Also, surprising numbers of people believe in ghosts and angels.

          1. Atheists like to poke fun at conservative tendencies of Christians, yet they are silent about the liberal tendencies of Jews. And what about New Agers? Overwhelmingly liberal to the point that I’m not sure any conservative New Agers even exist.

      2. I think they’re using “religion” in an expansive sense, to include any nonrational set of beliefs one subscribes to. And everyone except hedonists has one of those. As I’ve always said, there are three possible paths for human beings to follow:

        1. Self-delusion
        2. Hedonism
        3. Suicide

      3. I think that “secular religion” = “someone who believes in a secular belief system to the same degree that the religious believe in their god(s)”, ie Eric Hoffer’s True Believers. “Religion” is degree rather than kind.

  14. What exactly do “liberal” and “conservative” mean to a Brit? (The article was published by a professor at the LONDON School of Economics and Political Science.) According to the Wikipedia entry, the words could have both the American connotation and the continental European connotation. However, when juxtaposed against “conservative,” it’s hard to come out with any meaning other than Democratic Party-ish.

    Then again, the “liberalism” bit makes me think he’s talking about classical liberalism. A shitty study by any measure.

    1. WHO THIS STEPHEN SMITH? THERE ONLY ONE STEVE SMITH! STEVE RAPE IMPOSTOR THEN WEAR SKIN AS MASK! GARRRHHH

      1. Please don’t scare away the nice people.

  15. In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel.

    How does this definition of “liberal” coexist with the other observed fact that those who describe as conservative are much more likely to give to charity? It would be interesting to see how the study determined that one was more caring about unrelated people. I could envision a confirmation bias on the part of the researchers.

    -K

    1. Conservative are more likely to give to charity, but IIRC the charity is usually the church. The church would definitely fall into a tribal ingroup/outgroup paradigm.

      1. Most church charities provide help to people who are NOT in the group.

        1. true, it probably has more to do with group posturing.

        2. Well, that’s part of their evangelism – trying to convert the unconverted. Wouldn’t be much use giving to the converted would it? Like, ‘duh’.

          Hardly true charity, it’s just marketing in the true sense of the word.

    2. It’s bullshit. How about my model: Liberals and atheists are more likely to be intelligent; intelligent people are more likely to be selfish, so they are more likely to want other people to pay for charitable acts instead of doing it themselves.

  16. “…being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel.”

    Sooo, liberals are mutants?

    1. Liberals are New Men or Unusuals
      Libertarians are Old Men who like to fuck little kids. It’s all right here in THE BOOK

    2. Deety is correct: The individual who wrote this clearly doesn’t understand the real world – particularly basic biology. Random changes occur in the genetic code of organisms all the time. They are “evolutionarily novel”, but they are not superior. Almost all of these changes result in a mutation that is less fit for survival, and Nature selects it for extinction.

  17. being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with

    Too bad that’s not really what liberalism is about. It’s all about saying you care, of course. But what good do liberals actually do for those poor, unfortunate, starving people on the other side of the world? I would think that christian missionaries do whole hell of a lot more for them.

    1. They protest the evils of American global capitalism, that’s what!

      If we didn’t have this evil corporate capitalist system imposed by the sinister American Empire, then all those places would be socialist workers paradises by now.

      Therefore, trying to bring down the Empire from within is the best way to help the poor people we are oppressing.

      1. There is no way you are not high… or retarded… or… forget it.

  18. an economist doing ‘a study’ that includes evolutionary biology, semiotics, politics…what could possibly be wrong?!

  19. The gross assumption is that liberals “care” for people outside their personal circle. Most secretly, and occasionally openly, fucking HATE people they don’t know. That’s why, to psychologically compensate for this glaring contradiction, they’re so into robbing other people in order to “help” other people.
    — comment left by a Presbyterian libertarian

    1. Thomas: you said the same thing first, in a different way. You win the inflatable cock filled with candy corn!

      1. Awesome rewards man. I should really consider converting to Presbyterianism.

        1. Just stop displaying emotion and you’re 90% of the way there. 🙂

      2. And my IQ, Mr. London School of Fecal Matter, is 155. Get back to your playpen before you hurt yourself.

        1. I seriously doubt that contention. Do you have any evidence that you are in the 99.99th percentile? Any of the things that qualify you for Mensa will suffice (IE LSAT scores, a verified IQ test administered by a professional etc). Given your religious nature and predilection for ad hominem attacks I would guess you fall in the normal range for religious conservatives quoted in the above piece.

          Of course I’m sure you have advanced degrees in polemics and so can freely insult professors at prestigious schools of economics because their findings disagree with your worldview. Unfortunately it seems time and time again that reality has a strong liberal bias, which is why conservatives must so often turn to lying in their campaigns and arguments.

          Maybe next you would care to rip into biologists at Stanford for their contentions that evolution happened and men and dinosaurs did not, in fact, coexist 10,000 years ago.

          1. Yeah, or the climate professionals at East Anglia! Don’t argue with the professionals! They know what’s best for you!

          2. My IQ is so high it has never been accurately measured and I have the bloody 2×4 to prove it.

          3. I wouldn’t get too high and mighty, mister. You were mixing up “then” and “than” just a few posts up, and that’s a mortal sin if ever there was one.

          4. IQ tests in third grade skipped me a grade. IQ test two years ago pegged it around 155. 3.93 gpa in high school, with all A’s in every advanced literature and math course, including calculus. Never felt the need to go to MENSA and belong to a club filled with self-righteous assholes (most of them are; I’ve been around them). I am not a “religious conservative,” oh, Mr. Deep Thinker. I am a questioning Presbyterian, and a libertarian who believes that modern cosmology and physics is revealing a universe so complex and mysterious, that our discovery of its secrets just may lead to a religious awakening. Nice try with the creationist slur, you fucktard. Missed by a light year.

          5. Politico69sHisMother, wanna know why I got an IQ test two years ago? I was in drug and alcohol rehab. My torture has always been my ingestion. Even sober, it drives my anger and the ad-hominems I love to lob. So fuck you, and may God bless your every tomorrow.

    2. Conservatives hate people they dont know too with the exception they dont rob us, they just send us to far away lands to kill non white people.

      1. Johnson and Kennedy were conservatives?

        Nixon ended the last “kill the yellow man” war and he wasn’t a conservative either.

      2. Afghans and Iraqis are Caucasian so conservatives are sending aracially diverse group of free volunteers to kill White people.

        Democrats send conscripted slaves to kill “yellow” nips, gooks and slopes.

        1. Our Black Army sent to fight Caucasians!

    3. +1000

      Liberals, are really, really, into openly HATING “Teabaggers” and other types that they have zero social interaction with. They get their opinions about these people by watching Jon Stewart.

  20. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds….

    Einstein and Clinton are both well known to be both intelligent and philanderers. I’m sure many other examples exist to refute this study.

    1. Intelligent philanderers keep mum about their preference for sexual non-exclusivity.

    2. Einstein was a Libertarian

      1. He’s also the grandfather of big hair.

    3. A super-intelligent person would almost certainly prefer sexual nullity. Really, it doesn’t do anyone any good when you think about it.

      1. You’re trying to tell us something, aren’t you.

        1. Well, no woman has ever called me super-intelligent, so no.

    4. Clinton’s intelligent? He’s got charisma, yes.

      Try Stephen Hawking or Norman Mailer.

  21. I used to think Atheists were smarter until I found out about all the religious exemptions to irritating goverment and statist policies.

    The Lord can get you out of Romneycare in Massachessetts, having income tax imputed on HR-imposed life insurance (requiring the insurance violates the 1964 civil rights act protections against anabaptists), IRC 1402(g) exempts one from Social Security, and most states will let you skip vaccines on religious grounds (which aren’t cost effective because of the mandates).

    Jesus saves.

    1. Hallelujah!

    2. Wow! I never thought about that.

      Could we get conscientious-objector status for a health insurance mandate?

      maybe someone could lobby a faction of Objectivists to become a religion.

  22. At least atheism and belief are something you can sort of pin down. But I’m a “conservative” in the sense that I’m very close to John F. Kennedy’s liberalism, while I have lots of lefty friends who basically espouse 1940s isolationism. So which of us does the intelligence edge slant toward again?

    1. The one with the “You Can’t Hug Your Children With Nuclear Arms” bumper sticker on the Subaru.

  23. The use of IQ tests are culturally biased and typically used to label…wait…IQ tests are perfectly valid.

  24. If the description here is representative this study provides vast expanses of fertile ground for both conscience and unconscience bias to take root. Which doesn’t prove that they did.

    But without knowing the people involved I can’t even begin to guess how they might have tried to deal with those matters. In any case, I always find these kinds of studies hard to take seriously. Even if they point out how wonderful I am. Through I really to prefer to read the ones that say I am without flaw and perfect in every conceivable way. I mean, the plot just holds together so much better…

  25. Why are all you retards talking about politics? The really interesting finding was that:

    “for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence”

    So one-woman men are brighter than cads, but slutty broads are just as sharp as their boring sisters?

    1. No, it’s easier for a smart chick to get laid by multiple partners regularly. There is an inverse correlation between intelligence and available sexual partners for men. It’s easier to tolerate only having sex with the one cold fish they could catch if they convince themselves that they wanted it that way all along.

      1. Disagree.

        A smart chick who is ugly isn’t getting laid no matter how many degrees she has. It’s beauty that gets you laid. For men on the other hand it’s generally money and status – which tends to correlate with college degrees, which tends to correlate with intelligence.

        Any guy with a decent job and a college degree who is not an asshole and isn’t grotesquely obese or mentally deranged shouldn’t have any trouble getting laid. There are lots of single degreed chicks out there who can’t find dates because they won’t “marry down”. So you should be dating them.

        You might have to deal with dating a humanities major, though. Which probably means an obnoxious progressive chick who reads Naomi Klein. Good luck with that.

        1. A smart chick who is ugly isn’t getting laid no matter how many degrees she has.

          You really don’t understand men if you think that an ugly woman who offers no strings attached sex can’t get laid by large numbers of men.

          And intelligence is an aphrodisiac, for both men and women, though it doesn’t outweigh physical attractiveness, especially for women.

          1. Women are pickier, on average, than men. Which means that women who aren’t getting laid choose that — virtually any woman can get laid by multiple partners if she is willing to lower her standards sufficiently — while men who aren’t getting laid have that happen because of the pickiness of women.

            1. virtually any woman can get laid by multiple partners if she is willing to lower her standards sufficiently

              Extrapolating from porn to reality is always dangerous, but having seen the “one ton gangbang” I would have to agree with that sentiment.

          2. I think men tend to block out their memories of ugly women, if they really think that. You all have some picture in your head of a girl who is maybe a 5, rather than a genuine 1.

            Just, maybe recall that 40ish chick with the stringy half-grey hair, the big mole on her lip, and some generous flab, dressed in (say) sweat pants and wearing a fanny pack.

            Actually, an ugly woman with a degree is going to have a WAY harder time getting laid than an ugly woman without a degree. Her business suit is going to intimidate the low-grade men that *might* date her if she showed up in a biker bar, but the giant mole and missing tooth will turn off the slightly better-educated guys who think they can do better.

    2. Men who aren’t sexually exclusive = cads

      Women who aren’t sexually exclusive = slutty broads

      Interesting. I wonder how this study finds the difference of IQ between the serial monogamous and literal “one-partner” people.

  26. Liberal = the rejection of traditional orthodoxy (conservatism).

    Atheism is the ultimate rejection of conservatism.

    See Hayek – “Why I am not a conservative”.

    Or see Rush Limbaugh (King of the Rednecks) and his conservative EIB “network”…..

    1. Stop picking on Rush. He isn’t a redneck, he has houses without wheels.

  27. Oh, maybe you’re right.

    1. I may be right. You may be crazy. But it just might be a lunatic I’m looking for.

  28. In addition to inaccurately defining liberalism, this guy also didn’t take into account that many people are “religious” but with an awareness that it’s all a metaphor. On the other hand, many “liberals” hold religiously to their faith in global warming and in the benevolence of government.

    More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history

    Everything else he says is only relevant if you don’t question this unfounded assertion.

    As if it matters, I am an atheist.

    1. bing bing bing! As a Presbyterian, I applaud you, my atheist brother.

  29. As it is said, there is a big difference between intelligence and wisdom. Liberals prove that on a daily basis.

  30. They studied adolescents. I would guess that smarter kids might be more likely to intuitively realize that if everyone has a high standard of living, that makes the world a better place. Therefore, they know from TV, their parents, etc, that being liberal means redistribution of wealth so that the poor are less poor. Therefore, they may self-identify as being liberal, without really having enough life knowledge to make critical assessments of liberal vs conservative policies.

    1. I give up on trying to figure out when you go from being a child to being an adult, when a study like this treats adolescents as “young adults”, while the child-gun-death studies treat anyone under 25 as a child.

      1. Isn’t the young adult section in the library the teen section?

        1. My apologies

          Libertarians want to fuck “young adults”

          1. Everybody wants to fuck young adults. Most people (who are not themselves young adults) are smart enough to figure out that it is a bad idea if you are a non-young adult.

    2. That’s true, I thought I might be a communist for almost a year in my early teens before I thought it through and realized there was no way it could work (hey, I had teachers telling me it was really the best solution, if only “the man” would let us have it). When I got past that by 15 I wondered how dumb you had to be to believe it into adulthood.

  31. Socialists beating Communists 7 – 3 in Olympic hockey.

    1. Socialists Defeat Communists in Men’s Hockey 7-3

  32. hmmm…..after reading this article I can’t help but think that Sarah Palin confirms some of these conclusions.

  33. Hitler cared about the fate of an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers he never met or interacted with, too.

      1. Your powers of inference never cease to amaze me.

    1. Did we honestly have to pull the Godwin Card?

      1. High intelligence correlates strongly with pulling the Godwin.

        1. But using Godwin denotes that the said user has no rational argument for the subject

          1. No, it doesn’t. From the wiki page:

            Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”

            Godwin’s Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.

            If that’s not good enough, here’s an article by Reason turncoat Dave Weigel.

            1. +1 and stop picking on DW, he is a cool one.

  34. One of these studies comes out every 6 months, and they’re just as fucking stupid every time. I do have to ask, though, why they’re all done by liberals and always conclude that liberals are smarter. While I assume that one done by conservatives would determine that conservatives are smarter, I still find myself asking why liberals are so insecure that they just keep churning these out.

    Plus, the stupidity of such studies makes those who run them look stupid, and therefore makes (in this case) liberals look stupid.

    But I pretty much assume that all tribal, partisan douchelords are stupid.

    1. Perhaps conservatives are just too stupid to put together a study showing that they’re smarter.

      1. You make a good point. Though one could say that perhaps conservatives are smarter and realize how stupid and insecure these studies make you look.

        I’m still going with both liberals and conservatives being pretty stupid.

        1. Yes, and I’m sure this study convinces you guys that liberals have bad breath and are boring in the sack, too. Doesn’t take much to convince people that their political enemies are inferior, does it?

          1. Which is the point of the study. If your ideological opponents aren’t as intelligent, you don’t have to listen to them and incur the ensuing cognitive dissonance.

            That being said, I’m gonna cast my vote for IQs of 140+ skewing libertarian as well.

          2. Oh look, another liberal who thinks that if you don’t like liberals, you must like conservatives. Just another example of stellar intellect from a partisan. At least you proved my point for me, which is nice.

      2. Perhaps conservatives are too busy doing stuff that is, you know, useful.

    2. Maybe the data just keeps showing them similar things.

      1. If you’re really dumb enough to think that there is “data” that shows that one nebulous, ill-defined group is “smarter” than another nebulous, ill-defined group who happens to be the political enemy of the person(s) doing the study, well, I guess you also just prove my point.

        1. How do you know the author of the study is liberal or even considers himself to be so?

          And while of course it is impossible with 100% precision to nail down what it means to be in the group “liberal” and “conservative” that doesn’t mean that he didn’t come up with a decent operationalization (he just used self-identification basically, so he found that people who think of themselves as liberals have higher IQ scores, what’s so horrible about that methodology?)?

  35. Being more intelligent means you’re more likely to be accepted to the liberal brainwashing institutions known as colleges.

    1. You do realize you cant get a decent job without a college degree or learning a trade right?

      1. Stupid people can’t get a decent job without a college degree.

      2. Gates dropped out of Harvard before graduation and he had a nice job. Gut you have a point. He had that coder skill trade to work with.

  36. I must concede that this guy has a point.

    I myself suffered a dramatic drop in I.Q. between my teenage years, when I was an atheist, and today, when I’m religious.

    As a teenager, it was obvious to me that just about everyone I encountered was dumber than me. Not only the people I met, but people I heard about throughout the world, and people from the past – all of them were obviously stupider than myself.

    Nowadays, I look around, and I see plenty of people who are at least as intelligent as I am. I also notice that there are people throughout the world who are at least as smart as I, and that such smart people existed in the past, as well.

    How did this happen? I must have lost plenty of I.Q. points – it must be the religion.

    1. If your IQ was higher, you would have found a way to work abortion into that comment.

      1. Another thing from the ScienceDaily article:

        ‘[t]he theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women’s value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa’s analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.’

        So if you meet guy who is both liberal and an atheist, but who nevertheless doesn’t seem all that bright, now you know the reason.

        1. My interpretation was there are plenty of smart sluts out there.

          1. Smart Women, Foolish Choices?

    2. Nah, you never were smarter, you just suffered from typical teenage “I am smarter than everyone else syndrome”. Easy to be confused by that. These things pass though. Good to see you recovered.

      1. Max Max is still not smart enough to understand that.

        1. Actually, I’m pretty sure that was Max’s exact point.

          1. Yes, but my failure to use the ? symbol may have confused zoltan into thinking I was being literal.

  37. I have no idea what “liberal” or “conservative” even mean in their current usage. They certainly don’t mean what people who adopt those descriptions claim they mean. I believe in the non-aggression principle which makes me a libertarian. So let’s be honest. Anyone who is not a libertarian believes in aggression under appropriate (in their minds)circumstances. All other approaches which must advocate aggression are less humane and anyone who denies it is dishonest. Non-aggression is the single, central libertarian principle. I am sick of people who advocate aggression against others (whether for the “common good” or for “law and order” or whatever) pretending they occupy some higher moral ground. They do not.

    1. Kill ’em all… the Lord will recognize his own.

      1. Fine, then can we start with you?

        1. Do ya feel lucky punk? Well do ya?

    2. ah yes deontology vs. teleology. Just a little tip, deontological arguments dont work on teleologists.

  38. Someone should do a study on how many liberal academics are injured each year from patting themselves on the back too hard.

  39. The underlying assumption of “caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with” = “liberal” in a political sense basically takes for granted the liberal accusation that conservatives oppose liberals’ policies because they don’t care about (or worse, are malevolent towards) those policies’ supposed benefactors: fx. “you’re against welfare because you who hate the poor.” But a conservative would respond that he *does* care about the poor, and that non-emergency welfare hurts the recipient in the long run by making them dependent on the state and taking away their motivation to strive. Assuming you grant both the liberal and conservative the benefit of the doubt regarding their motives, how can you say that one is more caring toward humanity at large than the other? It’s not that they don’t care about people they don’t know. It’s that they disagree about whether given policies will help or harm those people.

  40. Is this study a joke?? In my experience I have found many liberals to be quite irrational and borderline insane.

    1. If you can’t say the same about conservatives (and even libertarians), you are being dishonest.

  41. Actually, liberals and marxists have always had more high school dropouts. Lower income people are attractive to liberalism and Marxism. Democratics do the best with afro-american that are still more likely to drop out of high school than whites and do lower on IQ tests. The communists besides Lenin had many that came from poor backgrounds with little formal educatin.

    1. Libertarians harbor a fleetness of foot phobia.
      Ron Paul wrote about this in his newsletter

    2. You are talking of the drones they use, not the leaders.

  42. So how come nobody has pointed out the fact that correlation is not causation?

    But at least one person here has pointed out that the definition of “caring about others” in this study is pure bullshit. I’m not a liberal because I do care about poor people (I grew up as one of those and am so glad I didn’t have to grow up in western Europe — I’d have been stuck permanently).

    And at least one person above alluded to the Giant Elephant-Like Creature in the room (which may or may not be a real, actual elephant): what’s the correlation between people who are educated, start to finish, by teachers who are fucking liberals, and the probability that the students who come out the other end are also liberals?

    I contend, those who come out of our modern educational system that are not liberals, are more likely to be smarter in some substantive ways, plus they’ve demonstrated far greater intellectual independence and self confidence.

    I proclaim liberals The Great Under Race, the Go-Along-To-Get-Along slime balls of the modern world.

    1. Tune in tomorrow, by then I’ll have had time to find some statistical correlation that proves my assertions. If they can insinuate correlation is causation, so can I.

      Ron, hint-hint: this is the road to publishing your very own paper, easily, wherein you show that libertarians are smarter than f***ing other thing that ever has, or ever will, live in this universe.

    2. what you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.

      1. @MNG
        And everyone is now blown away by your deep intellect, demonstrated by your ability to quote Billy Madison.

      2. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.

        How many people are in your room?

        1. Ah, give him a break. He wasn’t one of the few who escaped being made a liberal parrot by the educational system.

        2. Any why use text to speech?

    3. “So how come nobody has pointed out the fact that correlation is not causation?”

      Because most of us did better than the WFB Correspondence Course of Logic and Great Arguments you could order from the back of NR back in the day…

      I mean really, “correlation doesn’t equal causation” is one of these childish mantras half educated people stumble across and think they have some super weighty secert intellectual spell they can chant in the face of common sense.

      Yes, yes, the mere fact two variables correlate does not confirm causation. Of course, causation does confirm correlation, so when things correlate eyebrows should be raised in interest. Ideally we control for any spurious relationships, but that is, regarding social phenomena, virtually impossible. So we can run certain analyses using many constants and when the correlations hold up and are significant only a damned fool will still stand there clutching their junior college science books and teary-eyed stamp their feet yelling “but correlation doesn’t equal causation, it doesn’t, it doesn’t it doesnt you told me so!”

      1. I mean really, “correlation doesn’t equal causation” is one of these childish mantras half educated people stumble across and think they have some super weighty secert intellectual spell they can chant in the face of common sense.

        So now it isn’t “Math 101” any more?

        I always thought it was more of a Statistics topic. Silly me.

  43. I seriously doubt the researcher was discussing liberals in the US terminology instead of the European terminology (seeing as this is a study out of the school of london).

    Not that that affects the inanity of the study however. Feel free to continue heaping abuse at good old fashioned pop-science.

  44. Another thing from the ScienceDaily article:

    ‘[t]he theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women’s value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa’s analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.’

    So if you meet guy who is both liberal and an atheist, but who nevertheless doesn’t seem all that bright, now you know the reason.

    1. And, ladies, if a liberal atheist man is carrying a copy of *The Da Vinci Code,* run away!

      1. Idiot conservatives AND liberals read shitty Dan Brown books. I live in Texas and I’ve seen it all. You can’t imagine the unbelievable dumb shit I see stupid females reading (and I say females because I rarely see males reading).

  45. …Furthermore, I don’t think IQ numbers mean much other than the ability to accomplish certain specific logic leaps in problem solving on a particular test, which has never correlated with how well people perform at life. There is also a test for emotional IQ that some people have started taking that measures how well a person seems to understand people and I wouldn’t be surprised if the results biased just the opposite of what this study found, but those that are religious tend to show better skills at working with people and solving issues around human interaction versus people that just have a high mental IQ. If we valued one IQ completely over the other, we’d have the crankiest, most disfunctional genius running our world and would probably never seriously accomplish anything because theoretical physicists don’t care about organizing bureaucracies.

  46. There is an inverse correlation between intelligence and available sexual partners for men. It’s easier to tolerate only having sex with the one cold fish they could catch if they convince themselves that they wanted it that way all along.

    That is hands-down one of the dumber things I have ever read.

    Smart guys can get laid…a lot. They just mature faster and realize that ain’t what it’s all about. Trust me, I’ve had a parade of one-nighters, one-weekers, etc. And you know what? It’s friggin’ boring after a while.

    1. LOL!!! AO bragging about how much pussy HE DOESN’T GET!

      1. ^, he’s a man and you’re a boy.

      2. No, he’s bragging about how much he could get and does not want because he prefers intimacy to rutting.

        1. that makes him a man and not a boy.

    2. No argument here. What part of the word correlation threw you?

    3. Wow, I like to read TAO’s comments with Linda Rondstadt’s version of “Desperado” quitely playing in the background.

      1. and I be you’re all alone.

        1. She has lots of people in her room and using voice to text. Look up a few comments.

          1. crap,you have to keep notes to follow this site.

          2. That’s rich since Suki is a voice in John t’s head. He’s got lots of voices in his head…

  47. “Smart guys can get laid…a lot. They just mature faster and realize that ain’t what it’s all about.”

    That’s a hell of a non sequitar.

    1. Yeah, I guess I would argue with the mature faster part. If anything, for most it takes longer.

    2. It’s not a non sequitur. It means a lot of smart people have figured out they can find one person to get a laid a lot with.

      1. It means a lot of smart people have figured out they can find one person to get a laid a lot with.

        I’m guessing you’re not married, if you still think “once I get married, I’ll get all the pussy I want, whenever I want it!”

        1. It’s your fault if you aren’t getting it.

        2. no one said that. Are you systematically incapable of reading? It is empirical fact, however, that committed individuals have sex more than noncommitted ones.

          Suck it up and deal…or maybe you can provide more justifications for philandering again?

          1. After enough comments from TAO the traditional values always come out, like how with some Southerners the drawl becomes more pronounced when tired. Defenses of the virtues of the military, evangelical religion and now preaching the word on the virtues of monogamy…It doesn’t take long.

            But remember, he’s no conservative, he’s against the WOD!

            1. What the hell? Honoring your promises you made to be faithful to someone makes me a Bible banger? Does your wife know you feel that way?

              And when have I ever defended evangelical religion?

              you’re just making shit up now.

  48. …and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence

    I can’t believe no one has said this already … what does that imply about a certain golfer?

    1. Racist!

      Unless you mean the fat guy who smokes a lot.

    2. It implies the person who made that statement doesn’t grasp that intelligent men who make a lot of money can get a lot of pussy.

      1. intelligence doesn’t enter into the equation.

    3. No one has said it already because it is fucking stupid. Statistical correlations like this say nothing at all about any particular individual.

  49. IQ Tests, MENSA, and such amounts to nothing more than intellectual masturbation.

    1. You can’t get more sexually exclusive than that!

    2. You say that like it’s a bad thing?

        1. The filter won’t let me post the you tube Ernest Borgnine reveals the secret of life clip.

  50. Why are you guys so upset about empirically demonstrated to be on everage dumber than we are? Look, as a caring liberal I can tell you that smarts are’nt everything in life. There are other areas for you to perhaps do well in. Perhaps on average you guys might be able to run faster, or sit still longer, or hold your breath longer. All that is important too. Think about what you’re good at, don’t focus on your limitations…

    1. The liberal IQ advantage would be even more impressive if certain liberals weren’t dragging the average down.

    2. This is your best trolling effort? Come on, dude, you can do better than this.

      1. Come on, dude, you can do better than this.

        No you can’t and stop replying to yourself.

        1. John, how many times do I have to tell you that you’re not allowed to address me without express prior permission?

          1. Ok, is Suki not a real woman?

            1. Yes, I am a real woman. MNG is too.

              1. Ok, so why does this come up?

                1. Some people here think John/Suki are the same person. Hard to explain.

                  1. Just because I helped with John’s books and we share a blog all of a sudden we are the same person.

                    Not that hard to explain.

                    BTW, he doesn’t think Epi and MNG are the same person, I do.

                    1. Interesting, it is not that hard to figure out. Everyone has a distinct style. I change my name every time and it makes no difference to some of the observationally gifted.

                    2. Yes, Epi the anarchocapitalist libertarian and MNG the hardcore liberal are the exact same fucking person.

                      NOW it all makes sense.

                      /sarcasm

                    3. I don’t mean point of view. I am speaking of subtle ways we write grammar,foreign or uncommon words,structure, etc.

          2. I am addressing you again without your permission.

    3. It’s a proven fact that liberals are smarter. In their very own minds.

      Yes, some of us are upset. About the fact that some of members of the human race are so smart in their own minds, that they believe they should have the right to impose their opinions on everybody else.

      1. People voted for Obama and that is what you are going to get. Get the fuck over it.

    4. Look, as a caring liberal

      Use oxymorons a lot?

      1. prolefeed, get back to our other discussion under whatever name I am using there.

  51. LOL!!! AO bragging about how much pussy HE DOESN’T GET!

    Oh my god, what are you, 13 years old? grow the hell up – only man-children brag.

    Why are you guys so upset about empirically demonstrated to be on everage dumber than we are?

    Did they test libertarians? I must have missed that – perhaps you divined it with that above-average liberal brain of yours.

    “Smart guys can get laid…a lot. They just mature faster and realize that ain’t what it’s all about.”

    That’s a hell of a non sequitar.

    not really. it’s not a challenge getting attractive one-night stands. however, not only is it more fun to have one partner with whom you can explore and learn (sexually), it’s more of an intellectual and emotional challenge to sustain a relationship.

    That was not that hard to figure out.

    1. I’m not particularly fond of emotional challenges, especially those that involve having to apologize for not texting someone every hour to tell them you love them.

      1. Find some non-crazy people to have relationships with then.

        1. Crazy women tend to give you crazy good sex. They fuck like every time is the last time you two will ever do it.

          Eventually, they usually are right.

          Normal, grounded women generally aren’t crazy good at sex. But the rest of the time together is less … demanding.

          1. and then there is the other.

          2. The best ones are the multiple personality disorders — it’s like having a threesome every time.

        2. I’m not ready to go gay quite yet. 😉

    2. TAO now:
      Oh my god, what are you, 13 years old? grow the hell up – only man-children brag.

      TAO earlier:
      Trust me, I’ve had a parade of one-nighters, one-weekers, etc.

      That is all.

        1. Because you both failed to read earlier:

          “It’s called speaking from experience, you twit. I am not “bragging”; as a matter of fact I contrasted promiscuity and revolving-door relationships negatively as compared to sustained relationships. If that’s your definition of “bragging”, buy a dictionary.”

          1. Good god man, let it go. You read a statement I made concerning men with high intelligence who were married to the only woman who would have sex them (there are many), and for some reason took personal affront to it. You then told me it was one of the dumber things you have read because “Trust me, I’ve had a parade of one-nighters, one-weekers, etc.“. So if it doesn’t apply to you, why’d you get all pissy about it? You’re either too stupid to realize that what you’ve said in no way invalidates my statement, you’re lying, or you’re bragging. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you weren’t bragging, then you’re either an idiot and/or a liar.

            1. Wrong on all counts – perhaps you should consider whether it’s you who misspoke. i didn’t take “personal affront”, I just thought you were making a mean-spirited generalization. “The NERDS are all trapped with dead fish because they’re the only ones who’ll get in the sack with them!” Thanks for that, Captain Caveman. back to your subterranean dwelling ‘neath a stone, please.

  52. Dude, I know you are an either/or type of thinker, but “one night stands or monogamous sustained relationships” are not exhaustive of the categories available to those seeking the company of the fairer sex…

    1. “You know what Charlie, you shouldn’t be making these decisions anyway, okay? You’re not the decision making type. As the brains of this organization, I should have made this decision.”

      1. MNG strikes me as smarmy, dumb Dennis but so not as attractive. I picture Danny deVito’s looks with Dennis’s personality.

        1. That was Mac, dude.

        2. Dennis who?

        3. I doubt I have to worry about my looks compared to a guy whose handle is the nerdy virgin leader from Dude Who Stole My Car.

    2. Yes, yes, you’re fucking a woman who is not your wife, MNG. We get that. Thank you for sharing.

      1. Look liber-huckabee, I mean that a person can have a relationship with several women without having to have a “string of one night stands.” I understand the Prophet Joe Smith doesn’t allow you guys that, but the rest of us get to live a little…

        1. You have the time “have a relationship with several women” and still come on here about thirty times a day to be a smarmy dick? Wow.

  53. Mng, I think he means he’s married.

  54. “Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid . . .”

    It strikes me that religious people are considerably *less* paranoid that one might expect, given that millions of religious people were murdered by atheists in the past century. It’s a good thing atheists aren’t paranoid, otherwise the behavior of atheistic murderers like Josef Stalin might be considered evidence of paranoia.

    1. just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean the evil capitalists aren’t trying to kill you.

    2. Not that it matters, but far more people have been murdered throughout history because of religion than because of atheism.

      1. Only in the sense that many of Stalin’s victims (for example) were murdered ‘because of’ their religion.

        Stalin and his fellow commies gave the atheists a very commanding lead when it came to number of murders committed.

      2. I’m not even sure that’s true, when you add up the Holocaust, the Stalin purges, the deaths in the early years of Mao’s regimes, plus all the deaths in 20th century wars started by atheist ideologies.

        Yes, there were some medieval religious wars that lasted decades — but fewer people died in the Hundred Years War than died in WW2 in 1944 alone.

        1. I think it’s probably worth noting that Atheism wasn’t exactly a causal feature of World War II, nor was it a cause of most of the Stalin murders.

          If that were true then many of the religious members of the Communist party (of which there were undoubtedly many left over) would have died and whatever atheists lived out in the Urals would have been spared, but as usual it was more about ethnic “cleansing” than anything else.

          If you’re from Moscow, you’d have been poor but alive. If you were from the Ukraine…. Well… You already have a bullet in your brain or all your crops taken until you starve.

          Likewise, i don’t think it’s remotely reasonable to suggest that Hitler, the crazy quasi-Catholic spiritualist was motivated to kill the jews in an atheistic fervor.

    3. Religious people just have made up Gods to be paranoid about rather than real things in the world. THe point about paranoia and religiosity is not to say that religious people are more paranoid about things in general, but that their beliefs reflect the irrational feeling that someone is always watching which typifies paranoiacs.

  55. Killer Whale Kills Someone for Third Time

    Goes along with this thread.

    Dick Cheney lives. Better news.

    1. I have seen the Believe show in Orlando and they seem to have a great facility. I can’t help but think that these animals really only belong in the wild and not in a container.

      1. Was anyone surprised when Siegfried/Roy was attacked? These animals are predators.

      2. I think the term “killer” should take away any surprises when they do it.

    2. Everyone was in favor of saving Cheney’s brain, but when you put it in the body of a killer shark — ooh, suddenly you go too far!

  56. I suppose I’m a bit of an eccentric as I’m an atheist who marvels at all of the wonderful things religious people have done for their fellow man throughout history. I’ve had three relatives receive life saving surgery at St. Joseph’s Hospital and my father’s life was saved at Resurrection hospital over 20 years ago when his heart stopped and they resuscitated him. Needless to say, those are not atheist institutions (unless the Pope came out with a radical decree I missed).

    I think you can both appreciate many of the wonderful things organized religion has contributed to the human experience while recognizing the problems it often causes as well. But I believe that neither should have any real bearing on whether you believe in God or not.

    IOW, I don’t think:

    atheism = hating religion

    is a valid equation.

    1. This is similar to my position.
      Without the Catholic Church, there would be a lot less really nice architecture in Europe.

      1. The art world in general including drama and literature would be hopelessly damaged.

        Even the sciences, paradoxically, have benefited greatly from religion and especially religious people.

        I think there’s room for the recognition of this, while still practicing and extolling the merits of atheism and of course defending the right of religious liberty for all.

        1. Also, music. No religion, no Mozart’s Requiem.

          1. Perhaps he would have directed his genius elsewhere without religion. There is nothing inherently religious about any collection of musical notes no matter how brilliant.

            1. True – however the point with such things is that the religion directed some people to write music exalting grand & glorious themes, which has contributed immensely to music history.

              (I’m also atheist).

  57. Not all atheist hate religion. In fact, I have always thought it was an immature form of faith or rather prove it to me personally God

  58. Wow, conservatives are from Mars and liberals are from Venus.

  59. What planet do libertarians come from?

      1. prolefeed, you know the answer was your anus. Come on, middle school was not that long ago.

  60. I’m surprised no one mentioned that every living thing on the planet is genetically related. Sure they might be eons removed but still.

    1. Yes, are we not made of stars?

      1. As Carl Sagan said, we are star stuff contemplating the stars.

        1. Every atom in your body has been eaten and shat out millions of times since life began on earth. So you’re much closer to shit stuff than star stuff.

  61. In Spain they say

    “If you’re not on the left when your young you’re heartless

    If you’re not on the right when you’re old

    You’re stupid”

    1. They say it everywhere

    2. This saying strikes me as stupid.

      1. Start reading poetry and you will appreciate language more. I am under the impression that you are in your 20’s.

    3. They speak English in Spain?

  62. chad: On the other hand, highly religious societies correlate to a number of disfunctions, such as high crime and teen pregnancy rates.

    Yes, that would explain why arguably the most religious states (due to the high percentage of Mormons) are crime-ridden hellholes.

    Oh, wait. They’re not. Utah is 45th in crime rates, Idaho is 42nd.

    And teen pregnancy rates aren’t necessarily dysfunctional if the parents WANT to have children then, and the father is married to the mother or at least sticking around.

    But, thanks for trying, Chad!

    1. Don’t be disingenuous; see Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas.

      There’s quite a difference between Southern Baptists and Mormons.

      1. You’re assuming the Southern Baptists are causing the crime.

        There are other people living in those states. Some of them aren’t particularly religious. Some of the are criminals.

        One might want to determine if the religious community has the same crime initiation rate as the rest of the populace in that state before drawing your conclusion.

        1. Not if the point is about highly religious societies and not about highly religious people. There might be something about living in a highly religious society that encourages non-religious people to be criminal. Or maybe especially religious areas are likely to criminalize behavior that shouldn’t be considered criminal.

    2. Everybody knows that East LA and Brooklyn are the only places to measure religion and unwed teen pregnancy together, then blame it on trailer parks in Arkansas West Virginia someplace in the country without a Democratic icon.

    3. You are trying to contradict my assertion of a trend with an anecdote?

      LoL.

      You are right for thanking me for trying, because clearly I have provided you with new information that you can’t actually refute.

  63. “teen pregnancy rates aren’t necessarily dysfunctional if the parents WANT to have children then, and the father is married to the mother or at least sticking around.
    No teenager wants to have a child. They want love and confuse the responsibility of giving with the desire of needing.

      1. I would say like every teenager who gets pregnant. I don’t think it matters what is their political inclination or whether they have one at all.

  64. There is an inverse correlation between intelligence and available sexual partners for men.

    Well, no. Studies show a positive correlation between male marital infidelity and income. That is, smarter men on average earn more money and thus can attract more women.

    1. It works with men who earned their money the old fashioned way too (inheritance). The important factor is the money.

    2. Fine, if were gonna go there, we might as well get it right. Based on my own observations, here are female attractants in order of importance (obviously this doesn’t apply to all females. That should be a given, but someone will invariable try to play gotcha with it):
      1. Fame/Power/Social standing
      2. Smoothness/Confidence/Game
      3. Money
      4. Appearance
      5. All other aspects of personality(includes intelligence, sense of humor, values etc.)

      High intelligence tends to fuck with #2, which is why it’s a problem. #2 is very important, since #1, by its very nature, is an exclusive set with few members. The fact that intelligence helps with # 3 is often outweighed. Also, please note, this list is not for women who have decided to “settle”. This list is for women who, due to physical attractiveness or lack of competition, have numerous choices.

      P.S. “/” indicate different aspects of the same attractant.

      P.P.S. I’m not too interested in female feedback on this, since experience has taught me that women, for some perverse reason, lie about this constantly.

      1. #1 Smoothness/Confidence/Game but defined from a female point of view.

      2. I’m not too interested in female feedback on this, since experience has taught me that women, for some perverse reason, lie about this constantly.

        I don’t think the reason is terribly obscure…especially in sexual matters, society stigmatizes the natural tendencies of mate-seekers. Hence a woman who’s looking for a guy who has plenty of assets and power to support and protect her and her offspring is a “gold digger” — and a guy who seeks a woman who has most of her child-bearing years yet to come, so he can maximize his offspring, is said to be “chasing jail bait”.

        1. I think that there is a biological truth in your thinking. Though the reality is that women are likely to be financially independent and men don’t have a need for as many children as possible.

  65. No teenager wants to have a child. They want love and confuse the responsibility of giving with the desire of needing.

    Citation needed.

    “No” teenager? No exceptions to this sweeping statement? This would suggest you are pulling this statement out of your ass.

    1. Prolefeed, you may have been the exception that proves the rule.

      1. I know Mormans. They breed early and often. Married teen pregnancies are common there, and not necessarily a sign of dysfunction.

        I assume some other religious denominations might have members similar in outlook.

    2. The exception that first comes to my mind is that for about 99.95% of the last 100,000 years of human existence teen aged female pregnancy was normal and necessary for man’s survival.

      None, not one, of them wanted to get pregnant.

      1. Well you are wrong. When we had shorter life spans, the desire to have babies just came earlier. You can still see this phenomenon in third world countries.

      2. Really? All of those women, and not a single one had maternal instincts and wanted children?

        You must not have met a lot of women to think that is a true statement.

  66. In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

    Gah. Horrible logic. First of all, where is there any evidence that “caring about unrelated strangers” is “evolutionarily novel”?
    That either means it’s not adaptive, or that it’s somehow genetically determined. Both of which strike me as implausible.
    Secondly, what does higher intelligence have to do with this? Are ALL people with novel traits, necessarily smarter? Are they presupposing that it’s smarter to care about others, and hence adaptive, and thereby begging the question?

    Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa’s hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as “very liberal” have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as “very conservative” have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

    This could easily be due to the concentration of educated people in cultural environments that tend to lean liberal. Kids who are born to smarter parents are going to be raised with the same values. It’s not an endorsement of the intelligence of those values necessarily to say that people in the same socio-economic class tend to share the same views and transmit and reinforce them within their social grouping.

  67. TAO now:
    Oh my god, what are you, 13 years old? grow the hell up – only man-children brag.

    TAO earlier:
    Trust me, I’ve had a parade of one-nighters, one-weekers, etc.

    That is all.

    It’s called speaking from experience, you twit. I am not “bragging”; as a matter of fact I contrasted promiscuity and revolving-door relationships negatively as compared to sustained relationships. If that’s your definition of “bragging”, buy a dictionary.

    Dude, I know you are an either/or type of thinker, but “one night stands or monogamous sustained relationships” are not exhaustive of the categories available to those seeking the company of the fairer sex…

    True – you could get a hooker, I guess.

    But, yes, you either choose to give long-term relationships a try, or every relationship you have has a de facto expiration date.

    Not to go all 80s pop psychology on everyone, but most men who talk about how great it is being single are usually afraid to get hurt (again, usually) and hate going to bed alone, which they do frequently.

    1. Incredible, you only see three possible relationship statuses:
      1. String of one night stands
      2. Monogomaous long term relationship
      3. Prostitution

      WTF? How about having two long term relationships at the same time? Three? Several recurring on and off again relationships?

      I know you’re young, but you don’t have to have the experience here, just imagination.

      1. I’ll believe it when I see it. Even those “poly” folks usually end up going with just one person. They aren’t “poly” very long.

        How about having two long term relationships at the same time? Three?

        common sense tells us that there are very few (probably no) people who can pull something like that off. over time, you start to prefer one over the others, and usually women don’t stand for that kind of crap anyway.

        1. you are the woman pulling that kind of crap.

          1. I definitely know some of them.

            1. Zeb, I guess we have met;-)

        2. While poly relationships are usually unstable (by my observation), they aren’t entirely nonexistent.

          1. And they are not the same as a string of one night stands, even if they don’t last.

  68. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds….

    In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers

    ummm how low of an IQ do you need to conflate liberal and conservative values so badly?

  69. Oh come on now, my IQ was 140 at age 12, and I consider myself to be a Conservative. What utter nonsense by the author. I also believe God without any apology.

    1. I would think a child with an IQ of 140 could understand statistics.

      1. haha. totally owned.

  70. Of course, this doesn’t make them any more likely to be right.

  71. “Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid,” says Kanazawa.

    Call me racist, but are we going to believe a man whose name is an anagram for Kwanzaa? I still celebrate Christmas, goddammit!

  72. Hmmm, who says they are more intelligent?

    Jess
    http://www.true-privacy.es.tc

  73. Being a leftist or progressive isn’t an intellectual problem. It’s a moral problem.

    And as everyone knows, “smart” people often believe a hell of a lot of nonsense.

    With Buckley, I’d rather be ruled by 100 people chosen at random from the phone book than the 100 brightest at Harvard.

    (Disclaimer: my measured IQ is above the 99th percentile).

    1. Good point, in the 30’s Stalin had alot of fans in the intelligentsia of America. I dont know if it’s worse that they believed him or if they were being intellectually dishonest… Meaning theay are incredibly stupid and gullible or hateful and immoral…

      1. I don’t think Slain was any kind of dummy either.

  74. I was about to write something, but rather: Please read

    Hazel Meade|2.25.10 @ 2:07AM

    That is what I want to say, too.

  75. Like the noted supergenius Wile E. Coyote, liberals are typically blessed with an acute self-meta-awareness of their own superior mental powers and creative talent. Evolution has also equipped them with ability to communicate a warning of their axiomatic superiority to non-liberals, often for hours and hours on end.

    Unfortunately, non-liberals have woefully underdeveloped verbal cognative abilities, and will wander off just when the liberal is getting to the interesting part about its J-school masters thesis.

    Afterwards, the the liberal will migrate by bus or bicycle to its urban condo nest, where it will finish communicating its mighty intelligence warning call to its elderly cat. After rewarding the attentive cat with a can of Sheba gourmet tuna, the liberal will then peruse the personal ads in the local alt-weekly. This is followed by muffled sobs of quiet desperation, as the liberal is also highly attuned to its own superior emotional development.

    Before bed, the Colbert Report and the Rachel Maddow rerun.

    1. I am not trying to defend liberalism here, but that is fucking stupid. The same as saying “libertarians are all cruel sociopaths who hate poor people”. Stupid strawman caricature.

      1. Zeb, they will have to kick you put of the club if you show anymore REASONable thought

  76. Nicely done, as always, iowahawk.

    This study does actually serve a useful purpose in determining relative intelligence.

    Those who think there’s any validity to this study are less intelligent than those who think its a pile of horse muffins.

    1. horse muffins, never before has someone made a muffin sound so unappetizing. Thanks…

  77. this thread reminds me why my preferred outlet is BATIN!!!

    now, go away.

  78. I wonder if the authors of this study find that muslims are conservative or not. I would bet all I have that if pressed on thsi they would say it mainly applies to white conservatives.

    Also what does it say about Che, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, they certanly couldn’t have been that caring of other people, could they?

    You can see iin they way they express themselves this is a study geared to producing some results.
    I mean if you really want to talk about caring for someone, I know many religious people that are way more caring than liberals, they actually want to save me from going to hell!

  79. “I know many religious people that are way more caring than liberals, they actually want to save me from going to hell!”

    huh?

    that’s not caring. that’s butting into your life.

    1. Not in their eyes.
      Liberals want government to interfere in all areas of our life becase “the government knows” best. In their eyes, they are being caring(at least those who dont know full well what government control creates).
      Same as christians/mormons/jehova witnesses etc. In their eyes they are saving me from hell by trying to get me to believe in Jesus.

      So from that point of view, who is more caring, the one trying to “save” you from eternal damnation or the one “helping” you get through this life?

      That is my point…

      1. don’t see a difference.

  80. Intelligence is not the same as wisdom. A wise man is not a fool. What is a fool?

    Psalm 14:1-3 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good.
    2 The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God.
    3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.

    1. I want to know why God just did not destroy Satan?

  81. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as “very liberal” have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as “very conservative” have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
    Not having access to the actual study but having to rely upon the article for insight into it, if this is the sole support for the “liberals are smarter” theory then I would severely question it’s validity. A self definition of “very liberal” or “very conservative” without follow up to determine what beliefs cause them to identify themselves as such is not very informative. Especially when they make the jump to “they care more about others”.

  82. I seriously doubt that “libertarian beliefs would correlate to even higher intelligence.” C’mon, how could “Every man for himself (and himself alone)” be better than caring about everyone else besides yourself (liberal)?

  83. Libertarians think they are an island the exact opposite of caring for community. If anything their intelligence is most likely rock bottom. Which is certainly supported in my own experience as every libertarian I know is a high school drop out.

    1. Shit, we’ve finally been found out!

  84. I would suspect libertarianism correlates to high intelligence, but I would hesitate to treat this as evidence of greater insight into political theory than liberals or conservatives. Rather, I think the typical libertarian mind has a fascination with “elegant” theories, such as the E=mc^2 or the Non-Aggression Principle. Libertarians find such a simple rule to guide all political debate to be appealing. Higher IQs correlate to that kind of curiosity, abstract problem-solving, and appreciation of holistic solutions.

    Whether that is the correct approach is a different issue. I think people’s political beliefs stem from their psychological dispositions more than we’d like to admit to ourselves.

  85. Funny, I always understood the (more intelligent?) liberals and egalitarians detest IQ measurements, as it contradicts their belief that everyone has the ability to become the next Albert Einstein?
    And to the morons who declare their IQ to be many points above 140: you’re in the wrong forum here, you should be debating with science Nobel prize winners!

  86. To The Angry Optimist:
    “Not to go all 80s pop psychology on everyone, but most men who talk about how great it is being single are usually afraid to get hurt.”

    If you understand that “hurt” more often means “hurt by a miserable relationship with a bitch” than “hurt by a breakup,” then you’re correct.
    The very nature of a “relationship” is more oriented toward the woman’s needs than the man’s. Most of the things that make a relationship a relationship is stuff women like.

  87. no wonder education is expensive when bums like this are on the payroll. this guy would be on the street or flipping burgers if he had to work in real life.
    dude

    religion bought people (tribal or organized religion) together to form a society i.e village or town or city etc. you think 10 sexual males don’t want their own harem????????
    the atheist and libs are just feeding of the religious breakthrough which tamed human instinct to kill ANY ONE WHO APPROCHED HIS HUNTING ZONE OR CAVE AND WOMEN.

    TO HAVE PEACE EVERY TRIBE HAD TO BE PREPARED FOR WAR…..
    THE SAME APPLIES TODAY

    WE JUST THINK WE CAN HAVE DIFFERENT RESULTS TODAY

    HENCE THIS SMARTMAN WRITING THIS ARTICLE

    SIR

    DNA

    you cannot change our DNA

    thousands of years of survival instinct ?????????????????

    ITS IN OUR DNA………..dude..lol

  88. with republicans using people like Sarah Pailin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. It is obvious what the conservatives think he IQ is of their party. One would have to have a pretty low IQ to believe all the lies by Palin and on FOX.

  89. Please. Given the biases inherent in IQ testing, I hardly think 6 points is significant of anything. (I’m a high-IQ conservative, if it matters.)

  90. https://reason.com/blog/2010/02…..heists-are

    I take issue with the premise that being “liberal” is “caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with” ? although I will withhold judgment on the intelligence of people who end their phrases with a preposition.

    1. Intelligence and education (in this case, regarding grammatically proper English) are two completely different things.

  91. “Is it just me giving in to my confirmation bias, when I suspect that even higher intelligence will correlate with libertarian beliefs?”

    Based on the discussion/argument I just had on a friend’s Facebook comment re: economics… and this one fellow’s page list (libertarian-oriented pages) and his repeated dives into strawmen and logical fallacies…

    I’d have to say, yes, you are giving into your confirmation bias. 🙂

  92. As my statistics professor used to say, correlation does not imply causation.

    I’m old enough to remember when being either liberal or conservative was respectable and meant something, and when there were still many who understood that people of good will can hold different opinions. Now the labels liberal and conservative have been been warped and twisted in such a way that neither means anything good, and both sides seem to spend most of their time demonizing each other.

  93. please…Ronald B of Reason regurgitates “a new study by London School of Economics management professor Satoshi Kanazawa just published in Social Psychology Quarterly. As ScienceDaily explains” followed select excerpts and lots of BS.

    I am sorry, that attribution stream is ridiculously far separated from source data and statistical verification. I don’t care what you claim your IQ, karma, or sexual disposition is, you are an IDIOT to begin to take this seriously…..

  94. Ah – finally. My search for a way to say that Europeans are more intelligent than Arabs without being a racist has come to an end.

  95. Godwins Law!! You just lost the discussion, democratsarefascist!!!

  96. ABOUT WHY LIBERALS AND ATHEISTS ARE MORE INTELLIGENT BY SATOSHI KANAZAWA
    I’m an atheist ressurectionist Christian, So I still believe in life after death, the only difference is God the Father is an astronaut king from another world. I wonder how I’d fit into this study? Chant with me Klaatu, Nemo, Moreau,Oz, — Truman. God is a man ascended from the apes on another world, he’s a bit of Klaatu (The Day the Earth Stood Still), a galactic Capt. Nemo, and a interplanetary Dr. Moreau (Island of Dr. Moro), a Wizard of OzEarth(just pull back the curtain and see for yourself). We may be the ultimate reality TV show, a planet of the Truman show, where super advanced technology allows them to read your thoughts and everything you do is instantly transmitted by rods circling the earth to the mother planet. It may be interactive!

    Creationism The Final Frontier of Insanity
    The Bible says “come now let us reason together as men” Isaiah 1:18, not as babbling, drooling idiots. Every man and woman that preaches creationism is an enemy of God, Jesus and everyone that serves truth and sanity. Every verse in the Bible that teaches creationism can be argued. Man was created in the likeness and image of God, Gen 1:26, so God is a man from another world, a Wizard of Ozearth. It’s time you creationists stop being like the munchkins of Oz, it’s nice you sing and dance praises to God, but you really do have an obligation to speak the truth.

    Of course liberals being smarter than a conservative sounds bogus. After all conservative really only means “cautious”, as in if someone tells you to jump off a cliff because it’s cool, a conservative will want to wait and see first.
    So I’m inclined to suspect this IQ test is another Kendrick Schon fantasy perpetrated by one of the sciences that could get away with fixing to test and results, social psychology!

  97. Liberals if anyone have lower IQs.Liberals print money backed by vapor.Liberals believe they can feed and cloth everyone.Politics itself is an invention to seperate,while the two parties feed off one another for power and influence over the masses.Economic problems will never be solved by politicians since all they really produce is societal conflict.

  98. Studies like this are pretty useless, since it’s almost impossible to properly control when you’re comparing traits that are highly correlated with a variety of other demographic factors and actually establishing causal relationships is essentially impossible.

    One important correlated demographic of religious and political beliefs that isn’t controlled for in this study is the number of children. An increased number of children correlates with both religiousness and conservativism ( http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/…..y_eco.html).

    Earlier age of first childbirth is also correlated with lower cognitive abilities ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs…..423602.pdf).

    The belief questions were asked during early adulthood, 18-28, so age at first childbirth is going to be a significant determinant of how many offspring the subjects have.

    So, we have a tangle of known correlations between intelligence, reproduction, religion, and politics hidden beneath the correlation the study notes. Is the causal effect due to intelligence directly acting on beliefs or intelligence acting on reproduction which then acts on political belief? Would we see a reduction of the correlation if we looked beliefs in an age when the subjects are likely to have reach their total childbirth rate? Will social scientists ever realize that if in order for your study to work you have to control for every conceivable quantifiable difference in human beings and a few that aren’t, you’re probably not going to generate useful results?

    Other random comments:

    -The study is using vocabulary as a proxy for intelligence, not measuring intelligence directly. While vocabulary and intelligence are strongly correlated, correlations between vocabularly and other factors correlated with religious and political attitudes would complicate the relationship.

    -The analysis in the study constitutes some of the most ridiculous evolutionary psychology overreach I’ve read, and ridiculous overreach is evolutionary psychologists’ specialty.

  99. Also, if nobody’s linked to it (I haven’t read most of the comments since the debate up-thread got really dumb, really fast), here’s the paper itself:
    http://www.asanet.org/images/j…..eature.pdf

  100. Read Robert Nozick’s “Anarchy, State, Utopia” and you’ll understand that yes, you are giving in to your confirmation bias in believing that libertarians are more intelligent. His arguments can be deconstructed by any undergraduate political science student.

  101. Looking forward to another great article. Good luck to the author! all the best!
    http://destinationsoftwareinc.com

  102. at least libertarian atheists aren’t naive enough to fall into this bullshit left-right paradigm. Even without religion, both sides have good points. so many liberal atheist Democrats are really fucking annoying with their DOGMATIC conservative bashing, generalizing and overall one-sided garbage. generalizations such as the idea that any conservative value is the result of religious mindset…then 80 other ‘free thinkers’ praising said generalizations. THAT is group think at it’s finest. one could just as easily compare liberalism to religious thinking as conservatism as both sides have dogmatic “thinkers”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.