• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

AthenaAwakened

Contributor
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
5,369
Location
Right behind you so ... BOO!
Basic Beliefs
non-theist, anarcho-socialist
A lot of talk here about genetically intellectually superior groups

Might as well throw this into the mix.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

Political ideology

Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.

The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives. Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...y-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives
 
Well, you can't read too much into conclusions based off of IQ test results, since IQ tests have a well-known bias against stupid people.
 
So what if science does prove that liberals are smarter and better and everything than conservatives? How will that change you political views?
 
Well, I for one am glad we are able to finally accurately measure intelligence with great confidence and determine that some people are more intelligent than others.

You'd be surprised at how many idiots argue otherwise.

Unfortunately your same reputable source says liberals really screw up on policy:

policies endorsed by liberals, who believe in evolution, not only go against its principles, but, because they do, are doomed to failure. Policies endorsed by conservatives, on the other hand and unbeknownst to them, are actually derived from the principles of evolution which they publicly denounce, and, because they are, they have a better chance of working than liberal policies. The book is full of such astute observations, peppered with a sense of humor.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...berals-and-conservatives-are-both-wrong-about
 
IQ is not the same thing as intelligence.

It is a particular slice of intelligence. And a malleable slice.

Take somebody with a 120 IQ and somebody with a 90 IQ, train both to make a table and the 90 IQ person may consistently make a better table. Train both to give a presentation and the 90 IQ person may consistently do better. Give both a sales job and the 90 IQ person may consistently sell more.

Intelligence is many things.

IQ measures a bit of it.
 
Well, I for one am glad we are able to finally accurately measure intelligence with great confidence and determine that some people are more intelligent than others.

You'd be surprised at how many idiots argue otherwise.

You'd be surprised how many idiots argue that there are people that argue that some people are not more intelligent than others.
 
Well, I for one am glad we are able to finally accurately measure intelligence with great confidence and determine that some people are more intelligent than others.

You'd be surprised at how many idiots argue otherwise.

You'd be surprised how many idiots argue that there are people that argue that some people are not more intelligent than others.

How do we measure "intelligence"?

Not how do we measure IQ. They are not the same thing.

Everybody knows that one form of intelligence is social intelligence. The ability to interact with others.

Where is this measured on an IQ test?
 
Well, there's this: polls of prospective Republican primary voters in '12 found that almost exactly half of them were birthers (i.e., hate-filled numskulls.)
 
A lot of talk here about genetically intellectually superior groups

Might as well throw this into the mix.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

Political ideology

Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.

The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives. Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...y-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

This should be read in conjunction with: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201309/liberal-bias-in-social-psychology-personal-experience-i
and: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201310/liberal-bias-in-social-psychology-personal-experience-ii

But as it's doubtful this tread is meant to be anything other than tongue and cheek, please bask in this example of your liberal superiors:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ[/YOUTUBE]

Being liberal or conservative on social issues is a different consideration than being liberal or conservative on fiscal issues. I'd say the smartest of all are the moderates who don't let ideology hamper their thinking. :)
 
You'd be surprised how many idiots argue that there are people that argue that some people are not more intelligent than others.

How do we measure "intelligence"?

Not how do we measure IQ. They are not the same thing.

Everybody knows that one form of intelligence is social intelligence. The ability to interact with others.

Where is this measured on an IQ test?

Emotional intelligence is a different kernel than IQ. See Paul Dirac.
 
How do we measure "intelligence"?

Not how do we measure IQ. They are not the same thing.

Everybody knows that one form of intelligence is social intelligence. The ability to interact with others.

Where is this measured on an IQ test?

Emotional intelligence is a different kernel than IQ. See Paul Dirac.

The question would be, which aspect of intelligence is most important?

IQ does not measure creative potential.
 
The only thing we know for certain about IQ that people with high IQs do well on IQ tests. How well they do in life depends far more on how one defines doing well and what social class they are born into.
 
This is true. Liberals are smarter, because my astronomical intelligence skews the curve upwards. Take me out of the survey and both sides are the same.
 
This is true. Liberals are smarter, because my astronomical intelligence skews the curve upwards. Take me out of the survey and both sides are the same.

This is just a simple case of confirmation bias. In everyday experience, conservatives are constantly demonstrating a lack of grasp of simple reality. When a study comes out which indicates they tend to be thick, it agrees with our experience and we accept it as a given.

Some of my best friends are conservatives. My sister actually married one and I did nothing to stop her, so it's plain to see, I have no personal animosity toward conservatives. However, when we have a serious discussion over politics, it only takes a few questions and they are undone. After repeating something they heard on Fox, they have exhausted themselves.
 
This is true. Liberals are smarter, because my astronomical intelligence skews the curve upwards. Take me out of the survey and both sides are the same.

This is just a simple case of confirmation bias. In everyday experience, conservatives are constantly demonstrating a lack of grasp of simple reality. When a study comes out which indicates they tend to be thick, it agrees with our experience and we accept it as a given.

Some of my best friends are conservatives. My sister actually married one and I did nothing to stop her, so it's plain to see, I have no personal animosity toward conservatives. However, when we have a serious discussion over politics, it only takes a few questions and they are undone. After repeating something they heard on Fox, they have exhausted themselves.

Did you miss the link from the same source that says Conservative policies are better and Liberal policies are doomed to fail?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...berals-and-conservatives-are-both-wrong-about
 
This is just a simple case of confirmation bias. In everyday experience, conservatives are constantly demonstrating a lack of grasp of simple reality. When a study comes out which indicates they tend to be thick, it agrees with our experience and we accept it as a given.

Some of my best friends are conservatives. My sister actually married one and I did nothing to stop her, so it's plain to see, I have no personal animosity toward conservatives. However, when we have a serious discussion over politics, it only takes a few questions and they are undone. After repeating something they heard on Fox, they have exhausted themselves.

Did you miss the link from the same source that says Conservative policies are better and Liberal policies are doomed to fail?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...berals-and-conservatives-are-both-wrong-about

For what it's worth, this is bullshit:

In his book, Tokumei derives a set of policy implications and recommendations from the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection. He recommends what we “should” do on the basis of how humans “are” evolutionarily designed. Is this not an instance of committing a naturalistic fallacy?

The simple answer is no. Both the naturalistic and moralistic fallacies are logical errors to be avoided by scientists, in science. But Tokumei’s Monkeys on Our Backs is not a work of science, and Tokumei does not make any pretence to being a scientist himself. Instead, much like Amy Alkon’s I See Rude People, which I also strongly endorse and recommend, Tokumei’s book is a great work of applied science (as opposed to pure science, which is the only thing I mean when I say “science”), of social and public policy, and of social engineering. The naturalistic and moralistic fallacies are to be avoided by scientists in doing science or potentially interpreting science and the merits of scientific theories. They are not applicable anywhere else.

Evolution is a horrible model for society because natural selection doesn't care about any of the things civilized people normally value. The naturalistic fallacy doesn't stop applying when you leave the laboratory.
 
Emotional intelligence is a different kernel than IQ. See Paul Dirac.

The question would be, which aspect of intelligence is most important?

IQ does not measure creative potential.

I don't disagree with you, but I'd broaden the question to query the aspect of intelligence compared to what? The brain is not a homogeneous blob. A greater potential in one area does not mean a greater potential all around. Having a higher level of creativity is beneficial to the arts, but a higher IQ is more beneficial for engineering, maths, sciences, etc. A higher EQ would be comparatively beneficial in other environs.
 
This is just a simple case of confirmation bias. In everyday experience, conservatives are constantly demonstrating a lack of grasp of simple reality. When a study comes out which indicates they tend to be thick, it agrees with our experience and we accept it as a given.

Some of my best friends are conservatives. My sister actually married one and I did nothing to stop her, so it's plain to see, I have no personal animosity toward conservatives. However, when we have a serious discussion over politics, it only takes a few questions and they are undone. After repeating something they heard on Fox, they have exhausted themselves.

Did you miss the link from the same source that says Conservative policies are better and Liberal policies are doomed to fail?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...berals-and-conservatives-are-both-wrong-about

About the book and its author


“Monkeys on our backs” by Richard Tokumei will not even make good toilet paper

BTW

“Tokumei” is Japanese for “anonymous”.
 
Back
Top Bottom