Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

[Jimmy Higgins]

For what it's worth, this is bullshit:

You already got the book and read it?

But, anyway, should I discount this source completely or just when it says things I don't like?

Would you have originally brought it up if it said otherwise?

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

You are conflating general intelligence with specific skills. IQ is a measure of general intelligence. Building a quality table is a specific skill that need not depend on any kind of intelligence any more than the skill of running fast depends upon intelligence. Figuring out a novel method for superior table building without having lots of prior experience is something that depends upon intelligence, and the person with a 120 IQ is more likely to do it than the person with a 90 IQ. Now, if you give the 90 IQ person 10 extra years of carpentry experience, then they might be more likely to come up with a novel method. However, that isn't because intelligence is "malleable". The experience doesn't increase the intelligence of the 90 IQ person, but rather makes their intelligence less relevant to the task by giving them task specific knowledge that plays a larger role.
The performance of any task is the result of the interaction among several different types of factors, including general intelligence, specific abilities (cognitive and physical), experience-based training and knowledge acquisition, motivation, etc.. The particular tasks vary in how much each of these plays a role, and having more of one can make up for having less of others. Thus, general intelligence has its largest impact on tasks where the person has minimal prior experience and where a specific skill is not sufficient for good performance.
Take a 120 and a 90 IQ person that are equal on all these other factors, and the 120 person will do better on most tasks where general intelligence is relevant. The 90 IQ person will do better on tasks where the other factors have high relevance and they have more of those other factors than the 120 IQ person.

 

[Trausti]

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.

You are conflating general intelligence with specific skills. IQ is a measure of general intelligence. Building a quality table is a specific skill that need not depend on any kind of intelligence any more than the skill of running fast depends upon intelligence. Figuring out a novel method for superior table building without having lots of prior experience is something that depends upon intelligence, and the person with a 120 IQ is more likely to do it than the person with a 90 IQ. Now, if you give the 90 IQ person 10 extra years of carpentry experience, then they might be more likely to come up with a novel method. However, that isn't because intelligence is "malleable". The experience doesn't increase the intelligence of the 90 IQ person, but rather makes their intelligence less relevant to the task by giving them task specific knowledge that plays a larger role.
The performance of any task is the result of the interaction among several different types of factors, including general intelligence, specific abilities (cognitive and physical), experience-based training and knowledge acquisition, motivation, etc.. The particular tasks vary in how much each of these plays a role, and having more of one can make up for having less of others. Thus, general intelligence has its largest impact on tasks where the person has minimal prior experience and where a specific skill is not sufficient for good performance.
Take a 120 and a 90 IQ person that are equal on all these other factors, and the 120 person will do better on most tasks where general intelligence is relevant. The 90 IQ person will do better on tasks where the other factors have high relevance and they have more of those other factors than the 120 IQ person.

Fluid vs. Crystallized Intelligence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

You are conflating general intelligence with specific skills. IQ is a measure of general intelligence. Building a quality table is a specific skill that need not depend on any kind of intelligence any more than the skill of running fast depends upon intelligence. Figuring out a novel method for superior table building without having lots of prior experience is something that depends upon intelligence, and the person with a 120 IQ is more likely to do it than the person with a 90 IQ. Now, if you give the 90 IQ person 10 extra years of carpentry experience, then they might be more likely to come up with a novel method. However, that isn't because intelligence is "malleable". The experience doesn't increase the intelligence of the 90 IQ person, but rather makes their intelligence less relevant to the task by giving them task specific knowledge that plays a larger role.
The performance of any task is the result of the interaction among several different types of factors, including general intelligence, specific abilities (cognitive and physical), experience-based training and knowledge acquisition, motivation, etc.. The particular tasks vary in how much each of these plays a role, and having more of one can make up for having less of others. Thus, general intelligence has its largest impact on tasks where the person has minimal prior experience and where a specific skill is not sufficient for good performance.
Take a 120 and a 90 IQ person that are equal on all these other factors, and the 120 person will do better on most tasks where general intelligence is relevant. The 90 IQ person will do better on tasks where the other factors have high relevance and they have more of those other factors than the 120 IQ person.

I think this is going well beyond the intended scope of the OP.

 

[PyramidHead]

For what it's worth, this is bullshit:

You already got the book and read it?

But, anyway, should I discount this source completely or just when it says things I don't like?

No idea. I have no dog in this fight, I just know a bullshit argument when I see one, and saying we should adopt evolutionary principles in social and/or economic cases is just that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No idea. I have no dog in this fight, I just know a bullshit argument when I see one, and saying we should adopt evolutionary principles in social and/or economic cases is just that.

Well, why don't we just have some populations adopt evolutionary principles for social and/or economic cases and have other populations not adopt them and then we can see if, over time, the differences in these traits leads to differences in the various populations?

 

[PyramidHead]

No idea. I have no dog in this fight, I just know a bullshit argument when I see one, and saying we should adopt evolutionary principles in social and/or economic cases is just that.

Well, why don't we just have some populations adopt evolutionary principles for social and/or economic cases and have other populations not adopt them and then we can see if, over time, the differences in these traits leads to differences in the various populations?

Cute, but not your best work.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, why don't we just have some populations adopt evolutionary principles for social and/or economic cases and have other populations not adopt them and then we can see if, over time, the differences in these traits leads to differences in the various populations?

Cute, but not your best work.

Hey, some jokes are going to work and get repeated and expanded upon in later posts and others are going to fall flat and fade away into history. That's just how the natural selection of jokes goes.

 

[ronburgundy]

For what it's worth, this is bullshit:

You already got the book and read it?

But, anyway, should I discount this source completely or just when it says things I don't like?

Neither, you should try thinking for yourself, which includes recognizing that the different claims come from different sources and that the Psychology Today is just a media outlet and not the actual source for either. The OP is based upon an empirical correlation between childhood IQ and adult political ideology, using large samples and standard methods, and deemed valid enough to pass peer review in a journal that rejects 95% of submissions. It is a statistical analysis of publicly available longitudinal data of about 20,000 people by someone with relevant statistical expertise and training. He enters many control variables (income, education, race, sex, religion) and controls for reverse causality using a longitudinal design. The author also has a more general theory regarding why this relationship exists having to do with intelligence being important for making decisions that override the tribalistic, non-egalitarianm self-serving biases at the heart of religious belief, economic conservatism, and sexual infidelity. Thus he shows that higher childhood IQ predicts liberalism, atheism, and marital faithfulness. His theory is not outlandish and is consistent with the findings, but goes beyond those empirical relations and like most specific evolutionary stories is tough to show convincing evidence for.

In contrast, the source of the claims you cite is a non-scientist "author" without graduate training in psychology, political science, or statistics, publishing a non-peer reviewed book. His claims are not even scientific ones since the ToE, like all scientific theories, does not dictate particular policies and thus it is not possible for such policies to contradict evolution as the author claims. Policies are about subjective values, all human values are by-products of our evolved biology, so none can be incompatible with evolution. The author is committing the naturalistic fallacy. The book is nothing more than an ideologues proposal of how he personally feels the ToE should be used to inform policy. Also note that he does not claim evidence that liberal policies have failed, only a prediction that they "are doomed to failure".

 

[ronburgundy]

You are conflating general intelligence with specific skills. IQ is a measure of general intelligence. Building a quality table is a specific skill that need not depend on any kind of intelligence any more than the skill of running fast depends upon intelligence. Figuring out a novel method for superior table building without having lots of prior experience is something that depends upon intelligence, and the person with a 120 IQ is more likely to do it than the person with a 90 IQ. Now, if you give the 90 IQ person 10 extra years of carpentry experience, then they might be more likely to come up with a novel method. However, that isn't because intelligence is "malleable". The experience doesn't increase the intelligence of the 90 IQ person, but rather makes their intelligence less relevant to the task by giving them task specific knowledge that plays a larger role.
The performance of any task is the result of the interaction among several different types of factors, including general intelligence, specific abilities (cognitive and physical), experience-based training and knowledge acquisition, motivation, etc.. The particular tasks vary in how much each of these plays a role, and having more of one can make up for having less of others. Thus, general intelligence has its largest impact on tasks where the person has minimal prior experience and where a specific skill is not sufficient for good performance.
Take a 120 and a 90 IQ person that are equal on all these other factors, and the 120 person will do better on most tasks where general intelligence is relevant. The 90 IQ person will do better on tasks where the other factors have high relevance and they have more of those other factors than the 120 IQ person.

I think this is going well beyond the intended scope of the OP.

You cannot understanding the OP unless you understand these distinctions between the general intelligence that the OP is referring to and specific skills and knowledge that also can impact performance on any task. Most of comments here and all other threads related to intelligence show that people don't understand these differences, which is the root of comments like "but a person with a 90 IQ can still do better at X", as though this somehow undermines the importance and validity of general intelligence as a construct.

 

[fromderinside]

You cannot understanding the OP unless you understand these distinctions between the general intelligence that the OP is referring to and specific skills and knowledge that also can impact performance on any task. Most of comments here and all other threads related to intelligence show that people don't understand these differences, which is the root of comments like "but a person with a 90 IQ can still do better at X", as though this somehow undermines the importance and validity of general intelligence as a construct.

One measures success by how well one has done, not by correlating results of an inventory to the likelihood that others who score thus did well. Have not read about evolution? Things change and results change accordingly. We're not getting smarter, more intelligent We're just attending to those things tested effectively and the tests are reflecting that.

As for the rest we are designed to build tools according to most anthropological theory so most of us should be good at doing that, tool making, however the nails in your life are hammered.

 

[ronburgundy]

A lot of talk here about genetically intellectually superior groups

Might as well throw this into the mix.

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

Nothing in your link is relevant to the OP. Grant funding is a policy issue, not a scientific one (a standard ought versus is distinction). Thus, it inherently must be informed by political goals and values. The scientific merits of a proposal are only one minimal criteria to be considered in deciding how $ ought to be spent to achieve some shared subjective preferences or goals derived from our values and ethics (which is what all grant funding is ultimately deciding).

Social psychology is about human interactions, thus social values must play an especially important role in deciding how $ is spent to generate knowledge that will be used to impact social interactions. That reality does not negate the empirical validity of the research that social psychologists conduct. In addition, the data being analyzed is from large scale studies where no one was thinking about using IQ to predict political ideology. The goal was to measure a bunch of variables across the lifespan to identify predictors of health. Also, the researcher using the data to examine the IQ-ideology correlations is an admitted conservative-libertarian who spends much of his time pissing liberals off with what many see as sexist and racist evolutionary theories. If anything, his political bias would lead him to make the opposite claim than the one his reported findings show. Thus, your attempt at a hand-waive dismissal of the OP on grounds of political bias by the researchers doesn't fly.

 

[ronburgundy]

You cannot understanding the OP unless you understand these distinctions between the general intelligence that the OP is referring to and specific skills and knowledge that also can impact performance on any task. Most of comments here and all other threads related to intelligence show that people don't understand these differences, which is the root of comments like "but a person with a 90 IQ can still do better at X", as though this somehow undermines the importance and validity of general intelligence as a construct.

One measures success by how well one has done, not by correlating results of an inventory to the likelihood that others who score thus did well. Have not read about evolution? Things change and results change accordingly. We're not getting smarter, more intelligent We're just attending to those things tested effectively and the tests are reflecting that.

As for the rest we are designed to build tools according to most anthropological theory so most of us should be good at doing that, tool making, however the nails in your life are hammered.

Nothing in this word-salad gibberish is relevant to anything I said, or to the OP.

 

[Trausti]

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

Nothing in your link is relevant to the OP. Grant funding is a policy issue, not a scientific one (a standard ought versus is distinction). Thus, it inherently must be informed by political goals and values. The scientific merits of a proposal are only one minimal criteria to be considered in deciding how $ ought to be spent to achieve some shared subjective preferences or goals derived from our values and ethics (which is what all grant funding is ultimately deciding).

Heh. Two articles on liberal bias in sociology are not relevant to a sociology paper concluding that liberals are more intelligent than others? (On the same website, no less.) Well, you've put me in my place.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well, to be fair, IMHO anything posted on Psychology Today is suspect.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, to be fair, IMHO anything posted on Psychology Today is suspect.

I think I read an article in Psychology Today that said exactly that!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Well, to be fair, IMHO anything posted on Psychology Today is suspect.

I think I read an article in Psychology Today that said exactly that!

 

[ronburgundy]

Nothing in your link is relevant to the OP. Grant funding is a policy issue, not a scientific one (a standard ought versus is distinction). Thus, it inherently must be informed by political goals and values. The scientific merits of a proposal are only one minimal criteria to be considered in deciding how $ ought to be spent to achieve some shared subjective preferences or goals derived from our values and ethics (which is what all grant funding is ultimately deciding).

Heh. Two articles on liberal bias in sociology are not relevant to a sociology paper concluding that liberals are more intelligent than others? (On the same website, no less.) Well, you've put me in my place.

The article does not show liberal bias in sociology. Deciding what to fund is not sociology, it is inherently politics. You put yourself in your place, don't blame me. (btw, sociology and social psychology are completely separate disciplines that ask different questions and use different methods).

 

[Bronzeage]

Well, to be fair, IMHO anything posted on Psychology Today is suspect.

What might be the qualifications for landing a job on the staff of Psychology Today?

 

[Bomb#20]

So what if science does prove that liberals are smarter and better and everything than conservatives? How will that change you political views?

I predict that it will not change her political views an iota.

In case you haven't noticed, I am not a liberal.