Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

It's not a problem when GOP presidents continue their vacations when Americans are killed.

It's not a problem when GOP presidents continue their vacations when Americans are killed.
Reagan continued to ride at his ranch when 62 Americans were killed by USSR. No one trashed Reagan at the time. Because IOKIYAR! (Click on image.)

Sunday, February 28, 2010

INTERESTING STUDY ON IQ AND POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS AND SEXUAL BEHAVIORS (turns out the more liberal you are, the higher your IQ)





Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people’s behaviors come to be.

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

“The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward,” said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. “It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people — people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower — are likely to be the ones to do that.”

Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with “unconventional” philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be “ways to communicate to everyone that you’re pretty smart,” he said.

The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.

Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a “new” preference.

For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

“It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere,” Kanazawa said.

Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism “allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion,” Bailey said.

“Historically, anything that’s new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence,” he noted.

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.

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

Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach — looking out for the people around you first — fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. “It’s unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers.” he said.

The study found that young adults who said they were “very conservative” had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were “very liberal” averaged 106.

It also makes sense that “conservatism” as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.

Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.


None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.

"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.

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

Albert Einstein, a true liberal:

"Einstein considered himself a pacifist and humanitarian, and in later years, a committed democratic socialist. He once said, "I believe Gandhi's views were the most enlightened of all the political men of our time. We should strive to do things in his spirit: not to use violence for fighting for our cause, but by non-participation of anything you believe is evil." Einstein's views on other issues, including socialism, McCarthyism and racism, were controversial (see Einstein on socialism). In a 1949 article, Albert Einstein described the "predatory phase of human development", exemplified by a chaotic capitalist society, as a source of evil to be overcome. He disapproved of the totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, and argued in favor of a democratic socialist system which would combine a planned economy with a deep respect for human rights. Einstein was a co-founder of the liberal German Democratic Party.


Einstein was very much involved in the Civil Rights movement. He was a close friend of Paul Robeson for over 20 years. Einstein was a member of several civil rights groups (including the Princeton chapter of the NAACP) many of which were headed by Paul Robeson. He served as co-chair with Paul Robeson of the American Crusade to end lynching. W.E.B. DuBois was charged frivously as a communist spy during the McCarthy era while he was in his 80s Einstein volunteered as a character witness in the case. The case was dismissed shortly after it was annouced he was to appear in that capacity. Einstein was quoted as saying that "racism is America's greatest disease".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein


President Barack Hussein Obama, Liberal



Rush Limbaugh, Conservative

28 comments:

TAO said...

You might have to digest this and spell it out in an easier to understand way...

Let me help...

Conservatives are on average 6 to 12 IQ points dumber than liberals, more likely to be hypocrites as they are most likely to have affairs while attending church.

Oso said...

Shaw,
All this will do is get someone on the Right to commission a study proving how reading books and not making mindless generalizations will lower one's IQ.

Teeluck said...

Liberals smarter?...who would have guessed it?
It does not take a genius to see that anyone who believes in blind religious dogma...needs to have their screws tightened...I'm just sayin'...

The Griper said...

I'd much rather have our nation lead by one wise men rather than a lot of smart men.

dmarks said...

Teeluck: I guess Shaw had better remove that religious dogma guy she is quoting in her sidebar.

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

If you're referring to MLK, he wasn't a "blind religious dogma" preacher.

If he had been, he wouldn't have marched for Civil Rights since the Bible justifies slavery, and many Christians used blind religious dogma to justify the continuation of slavery.

The Bible also says that if you see your neighbor working on the sabbath, you should kill him.

Blind religious dogma would require obeying that particular inerrant word of God.

Patrick M said...

Wait? So I'm not a conservative now? Because I'm pretty certain I don't quite fit in the curve.

The problem here is that we're basing this on simply an IQ score, which measures intelligence from a specific point of view. Now to take your comparison of Rush vs Obama. Both are clearly successful men. Rush was successful despite no interest in college (and thus, no degree) by developing his talents, at which he is the best, his politics aside, and by working his ass off. Obama, as far as I can tell, has been successful by making a few speeches, voting the party line, and not having the faults of his fellow politicians.

As to the politics, Rush's knowledge far exceeds what his education would indicate, whereas Obama seems to be par for the political course. Disagreement with the message, or the presentation doesn't change that.

But getting back to me (because I have a bigger ego than both men above, combined), I'm thinking the study skews also because of level of education, culture, and a lot of factors that couldn't really be measured in a single study.

I'll also postulate that the reason the data show this is because that the default thoughts in the nature of men is conservatism, and it takes a lot of schooling to drum that nature out of someone.

As for the part about women showing no difference, I'll refrain from the obvious sexist comment that just came to me.

BTW, this is the same researcher that said that if Ann Coulter was president on 9/11, she would have started the bombing on 9/12, and the war would have been over on 9/13. I like her way of thinking. :)

Shaw Kenawe said...

Patrick said:

"Rush was successful despite no interest in college (and thus, no degree) by developing his talents, at which he is the best, his politics aside, and by working his ass off. Obama, as far as I can tell, has been successful by making a few speeches, voting the party line, and not having the faults of his fellow politicians."


Or we could look at it this way:

Limbaugh came from a fairly distinguished family [two judges in it?] and his dad was a lawyer. He came from an in tact family unit and was somewhat privileged, certainly compared with Obama's family.

And the best Limbaugh did with his privileged life is he became a demagogue who makes millions of dollars by demonizing half of the country's citizens. IOW, he's not much more than a carney barker who takes advantage of people's fears and ignorance, laughing all the way to the bank.

President Obama, OTOH, came from a broken family--his father abandoned him--and through his mother's insistence, he applied himself to his studies, earned scholarships to prestigious schools, studied hard, overcame the crap that comes with being an Afro-American man in this culture, and made it to the most powerful job in the world.

(Now you may believe none of that takes any effort--but that would be untrue. Pres. Obama got where he is today by working his ass off, no one handed him any of his achievements--he earned them all himself.)

Radio show host; President of the United States.

Hmmmm. How many American mothers and fathers would urge their sons or daughters to choose Rush's job over President Obama's.


Limbauagh is a multi-millionaire, that's true, and most Americans believe one's worth as a human is tied to how much money a person accumulates rather than what one makes of his or her life.

Demagogues come and go and are forgotten.

President Obama is the 44th president of the United States of America. History will never forget him.

Brando said...

I find it interesting that someone who was arguably one of the most popular contributors to modern science was a political dwarf.

Patrick M said...

Shaw: First, Rush wanted to be a talk show host. And now, he wouldn't want to be president. it would be a pay cut.

Second, I'll agree that Obama did work hard. Any highly successful person does. But I think he was pushed to where he is as much as he worked for it himself, whereas Rush really did work from the bottom (because his family really wasn't too supportive of the radio thing).

And Rush Limbaugh is the reason talk radio as we know it exists. History also won't forget that.

But it comes to my broader point, which of course you ignored, that it requires schooling the sense out of the smart people to make them liberal.

Shaw Kenawe said...

PATRICK WROTE: "But it comes to my broader point, which of course you ignored, that it requires schooling the sense out of the smart people to make them liberal.'

Of course I ignored it, because it's an unserious statement.

The conservative and libertarian who conducted the study would laugh at that attempt to denigrate liberals, because their data show that if one is liberal minded, one's IQ is probably higher than one who is conservaative.

There is also the data that those who had the highest degrees in education overwhelmingly supported Obama in the last election.

John McCain and Sarah Palin locked up the high school grads and those with less than h.s. education--that demographic overwhelmingly voted for the Republican ticket.

Facts are stubborn things.

No one is saying that all liberals are brilliant and all conservatives are less brilliant--the data show that apparently the higher the IQ the more likely it is thaat one is a liberal.

Brando: "I find it interesting that someone who was arguably one of the most popular contributors to modern science was a political dwarf."

That's an absurd statement. Look up the definition of "arguably."

There is no argument over Einstein's brilliance and originality of thought. None.

No one would ever place him in the pantheon of the greatest scientists in history because he was the "most popular" contributor to scientific knowledge. His popularity had nothing to do with his place as one of the greatest minds in history.

And your swipe at him for also being a liberal is understood after having read the results of the study this post is about.

We expect that level of discourse from your side of the aisle.

Patrick M said...

Shaw: *grumbling* make me have to work to make the point I made easily.

PATRICK WROTE: "But it comes to my broader point, which of course you ignored, that it requires schooling the sense out of the smart people to make them liberal.'

Of course I ignored it, because it's an unserious statement.


Actually, it's a serious idea stated in an unserious way. So let me clarify.

First, the default nature of people is that of conservatism. This would account for why more of the less educated identify with conservatism. However, as you get to the higher intellects, you have a larger diversity of ideas and possibilities. Some stay with their conservative roots. Some veer into libertarian territory (me), and many, as much of higher education is dedicated to liberal/progressive thought, go with that idea as the most logical as one that shifts the burden for maintaining a functional and prosperous society form the common sense of the individual toward the egalitarian view of government as a solution.

So if the majority (which is of average intelligence) is generally conservative (even if they voted for Obama), then of course the results are going to skew in favor of higher-IQ liberals.

And somehow, I think this research missed the Obama voter video where people picked by an Obama supporter proved they were wholly ignorant of the government they had just cast votes for.

And another point I neglected in my otherwise good humor: Intelligence alone doesn't make a smart person. I know intellectual midgets who can intuitively grasp concepts that baffle the intelligentsia, and academic giants (my cousin, who was high school valedictorian, and may be a doctor at this point) without a lick of sense. IQ is one measure, but not the whole picture of intelligence.

Arthurstone said...

To paraphrase: If Ann Coulter had been president 9/11 she'd have started bombing on 9/12 & the war would have ended 9/13. I like the way she thinks'.

Wonder who she'd have bombed?

Rgardless. The original statement and the subsequent display of enthusiasm beautifully capture the opposite of thought.

Shaw Kenawe said...

I understand the point about high IQ not being the only measure of one's intelligence--but there is also the truth that if one has a low IQ, it is unlikely one will be able to grasp and understand complex ideas, nuance, and even other people's PoV.

The greatest changes to come about in human societies have come from liberal ideas. Our own American Revolution is an example. The Tories [who would be modern day conservatives] were against breaking from England. The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries who embraced liberal ideas from the Enlightenment.

The abolitionists, suffragists, Civil Rights movement, labor movements, child labor laws, gay civil rights, universal health care, are all associated with liberal ideas.

I don't believe anyone would agree with your premise that the smart Americans who supported those liberal ideas had the sense "schooled" out of them.

TAO said...

Boy, what a bunch of assumptions...

First off an IQ test measures intelligence not level of education achieved so to assume that one is liberal because one has a high IQ and thus one had the 'conservativism' educated out of them is a premise that was NOT established by any of the facts presented.

Now, studies have proven that people who had achieved higher levels of education did overhwelmingly vote for Obama...but that does not prove that these were high IQ people...one might assume that they were but it is not proven.

As far as the video showing some Obama supporters not having a clue who they voted for...again, studies have shown that people who had earned higher degrees and who had higher income did vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers...which refutes the whole assumption made by the video.

TAO said...

"And another point I neglected in my otherwise good humor: Intelligence alone doesn't make a smart person. I know intellectual midgets who can intuitively grasp concepts that baffle the intelligentsia, and academic giants (my cousin, who was high school valedictorian, and may be a doctor at this point) without a lick of sense. IQ is one measure, but not the whole picture of intelligence."

Lets see, basically we are claiming that "intellectual midgets" which I assume means those people who do not have college degrees are able to understand concepts and solve problems that "baffle the intelligentsia, and academic giants"

I would argue that these 'intellecutal midgets' have high IQ's just low academic achievement. Thus, that does not refute this study.

Then in regard to those who have high IQ's but lack 'common sense' well, what is a measure of 'common sense' other than our own perceptions of someone else? As so stated then aren't we saying "because I think they are stupid they must be stupid?"

That is not a measure of someone elses intelligence but rather our own....just because we do not understand them doesn't make them stupid...it might mean that we are stupid....

The Griper said...

just because a person can be considered academically intelligent doesn't automatically make them politically intelligent.

intelligent people can have stupid ideas as well as anyone else.

wisdom comes from knowing the right question to ask not from knowing the answers. remember, no question is ever wrong, only the answers can be wrong or more precisely, incorrect.

also remember that it is the wise man that keeps his mouth shut and listens that is only thought to be a fool. it is the fool that opens his mouth and brags about himself that reveals himself as a fool.

Shaw Kenawe said...

THE GRIPER: "just because a person can be considered academically intelligent doesn't automatically make them politically intelligent."

Shaw K: Who makes the decision that someone is "politically intelligent?" Isn't politics subjective? Academic intelligence at least can be measured: either you know facts or you don't; either you understand a theory or you don't. Politics is a matter of what ideology suits one's PoV.

THE GRIPER: "intelligent people can have stupid ideas as well as anyone else."

Shaw K: True.

THE GRIPER: "wisdom comes from knowing the right question to ask not from knowing the answers."

Well, not in all cases. For example, I'd want my doctor to know the answer to the question "Is this going to kill me?"

Thanks for stopping by.

BB-Idaho said...

Correlative data?
a recent study at PEW finds:
"Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans."

A Friend who has no blog said...

Re: the Van Jones video you had up yesterday:

Looks like it pisses the righties blogger off. Looks like they come here and spy on what you blog, shaw!

Keep up the good work--so long as they're talking about you on their blogs, that means you're doing a great job. They're not talking about conservatives blogs, they're using their blogs to talk about you and to link to you!

In a way, it's a tremendous compliment.

Here's what Right is Right just posted about you:

Shaw Kenawe At: Progressive Eruptions
Says............


VAN JONES Is A CLASS ACT!
http://progressiveerupts.blogspot.com/

Isn't it interesting that Van Jones is the best the radical left has to offer to praise.
If Van Jones is the best the radical left has to to call "A Class Act", then the Conservative movement in this country will do just fine.
This guy is a self admitted communist and Barack Obama chose HIM to be one of his advisers.

Only a kool-aid drinking left wing liberal would defend this Commie by showing videos of what someone says as *smearing* them!!
How stupid! How predictable! What Ridiculous Liberal Spinning! These Liberals always play the race card, and play it every chance they get.

When will these people get it? When will they understand that we don't want these types in our Government- don't you get it? They hate America and what we stand for and they want to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE IT . We wanted change but NOT the type Barack Obama is giving us.
Maybe Charles Manson could be 'The Family Czar' after all he had lots of experience with the family!

after all he has experience with the family.
Posted by Right Is Right at 4:59 AM 0 comments

The Griper said...

shaw:
"Shaw K: Who makes the decision that someone is "politically intelligent?" Isn't politics subjective? "

the point being that relying on academic intelligence can and does lead to the fallacy of "appeal to authority" logically. just because a person is an expert in one field of study doesn't make him an expert in another field of study.
example:
physics and politics are two separate fields of study. you would not cite a political scientist in regards where physics was the issue in question nor the other way around. that would result in a fallacious argument. nor does it justify elevating one ideology above another ideology as implied by your post.
---------------
"...I'd want my doctor to know the answer to the question "Is this going to kill me?"


his answer to that question would be a matter of knowledge not wisdom, shaw. knowledge and wisdom are two different concepts and are not synonymous terms.

Fogo de Chao said...

Interesting study but more interesting is what BBIdaho linked to.

A majority of scientists self identify as Democratic.

Another interesting stat is that a majority of scientists are non-religious, and the physicists are the group that is the least religious.

sum dum white boy said...

You ever notice some of the most educated people in America are the stupidest. Ahum, did I forget to say that they are also Republicans)

I remember asking my daddy as a little boy, as we flipped through a photo album, old shots of a wonderful resort on a beach. "Daddy, when can we go there?" I asked.

"Not for a while son, we have to wait for a bunch of old men to die." The beach was in Cuba.

If Democrats fail now we're going back into the grips of the party that shouldn't be.

Hey dumb ass Conservatives, get your shit together or this country is in it's final throws. It's time to step up to the plate and back up your President. All Republicans need to do to take back this country at this rate is sit in a comfy chair and wait.

Yeah, fucking retarded. I guess this country is still waiting for a bunch of old men to die.

And as for the cheat notes on Sarah Palin's hand. Is that better tnan teleprometers? It's 2010. We can almost shoot a missile out of space with a missile. Man we can almost go back to the moon again. Soon the richest 1 percent will be able to take party trips to the edge of space and have babies they can deny are theirs until a court ordered paternity test ends the labor pains.

Why the hell are people still chopping down trees to write speeches on little note cards. I mean that's just a fail. And seriously, ink on the palm. Plan to scrub that off with a bunch of chemicals later?

This is the woman who's advising the President to nuke Iran if he wants to get re-elected. And people actually still want to hear what she has to say? That's retarded!

Dick Cheney is at it again, accusing Obama of pretending there is no war. People are getting pretty sick of this back stabber.

Of course how long will this work, as Obama has not only continued but aggressively pursue the policies of those who came before him—that includes the evils committed by both the Bush and Clinton Administration. Pretty damn slick Dick.

Lets face it, if you are stupid enough to label yourself a tea party you're in for some mad hatter jokes. There is nothing independent about that party, there never was. Frankly I am sick of all the propped up heroes.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

It was Sarah Palin who gave people permission to used that word--as long as it was used as satire.

It is not bashing any group of people anymore than using the adjectives moronic, stupid or crazy is.


The dictionary def for retarded is:

slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress

The dictionary def of stupid is:

Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.

moronic: relatively slow in mental or emotional or physical development

I have friends who have Downs Syndrom children--and those kids are NOT slow or obtuse. My experience with those children is that they are loving, trusting, happy, and, IMHO, very very able to deal with their surroundings.

Should I take offense every time someone uses the word "crazy?"

That is a term that was commonly used to describe someone who had lost their mind--a mentally deranged person.

definition: crazy - affected with madness or insanity;

My mother suffered from schizophrenia--she was "crazy" according to the above definition.

Should I ban the use of that word? or accuse people of bashing mentally ill people every time "crazy" is used?

Should I picket the film I recently saw "Crazy Heart" because it bashes people affected with madness in its title?

Grung_e_Gene said...

First Shaw Kenawe, I'd file this under the obvious tag.

But when it comes to her just use Deaf, dumb and Blind to describe Palin, but it is interesting that Our Lady of Iquitarod Queen GOP Spokesmodel and official Mouth and Boby of the GOP, Sarah Palin is in favor of restricting Americans Freedoms. Palin as a member of Government is in favor of Restricting the 1st Amendment.

Gor instance when I use the word "retard" to describe R. Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Malkin, Breitbart, Palin, the Tea Baggers and pretty much everyone on the right it is in reference to their actions, the Republicans plans to delay, to hinder, to impede, to retard Progress, Justice, Goodness, Kindness, Fairness and Society. Because that is what the Republicans are Retards.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Good point GeG.

Here's the dictionary def of "to retard."

I hope dmarks comes by and understands that the word can be used in this context:

v. re·tard·ed, re·tard·ing, re·tards
v.tr.
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.
v.intr.
To be delayed.
n.
1. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.
2. Music A slackening of tempo.

buy viagra said...

Funny how such behaviors are related to the sexuality of people! very good study! I'd like to see the results!