Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

[Yarddog]

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa has spent a his life researching the correlation between intelligence and a wide variety of vastly more demonstrable human traits and behaviors. Even the most cursory look at his CV reveals that he is not at all reticent to critically examine the socio-psychological behaviors that to many are deemed sacrosanct, and he doesn't mind stirring the pot by titling his papers controversially, often using blunt laymen's language rather than arcane academic lingo.

• Intelligence and physical attractiveness
  
• Intelligence and homosexuality
  
• A longitudinal study of sex differences in intelligence at ages 7, 11 and 16 years
  
• Why night owls are more intelligent
  
• Mating intelligence and general intelligence as independent constructs
  
• De gustibus est disputandum [I particularly like this paper's title.]
  
• Why we love our children
  
• Why father absence might precipitate early menarche: the role of polygyny
  
• Why monogamy?
  
• Theories of the value of children: a new approach

But, as interesting be the papers noted above and others he's written, the one this is about is the one noted in the title. Read the paper to find out why it's title as it is and what Dr. Kanazawa found and how he found it. His work speaks for itself.

If you have some credible basis for refuting his findings, by all means do share. If you just don't agree because you don't like his findings, or for a different vacuous reason, this is not the thread for you to share that about yourself.

And that is why some of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by men who believed in God......right?

And mass graves, 100 million men, women and children......filled by atheists who believed in science un checked by religious belief...... yeah...tell us again how smart atheists are....

Well yeah, they thought they were so superior, they were compelled to put all the dummies in mass graves.
It makes it so much easier for them when they can call the victims dummies

 

[320 Years of History]

Thread Note/Reminder:

As implied in the OP, this is not the thread for you to internalize the findings of the paper. This is not the thread to do anything other than directly address the facts and conclusions drawn from them with equally rigorous arguments, not mere pronouncements of dissent. What that means is this thread exists for you to offer corroborating or dissenting ideas that directly pertain to :

• The study's methodology
• The interpretations applied to specific findings

....and that are supported with credible methodology and analysis of your own.

320, you can take all the fun out of the most interesting topics.

Scientific journals once published studies on phrenology, too. Anti-feminism articles by scholars abounded:
Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy.[26]

Just because it's in a scholarly journal doesn't make it right, is my point.

Blue:
Truly, I don't want to entreat for unsubstantiated claims and assertions from folks who don't like the study's findings. I put the thread in the CDZ because I'm not interested in conjecture. If someone disagrees with the study and it's implications -- at the moment I don't, but I'm open to the possibility that the findings are amiss -- fine, they can share their soundly determined reasons for why they do. Otherwise, I'm not interested in what folks have to say about it for as you know, opinions are like bellybuttons....I can editorialize and speculate as well as anyone can. I don't need to have a discussion here to do that.

Red:
I agree with you, at least in the abstract; however, if one is going to oppose the findings of an empirically based study's conclusions, the only way to credibly do so is by identifying material flaws in the methodology or inferences drawn from the data and analysis of it, and then empirically showing the materiality of the flaws, that is to say, show precisely how and why flaws are relevant and worthy of being causes for the study's conclusions' invalidity. Sure, one can call Dr. Kanazawa's paper an "article," but what it is is more accurately described as a reporting of results. It's certainly not an editorial.

 

[320 Years of History]

Honestly I don't think intelligence has anything to do with political and religious views
Scientists can be mistaken like anybody else.
Maybe Dr. Kanazawa's study is wrong.

Not maybe...is wrong.

This tired old hogwash "study" makes the rounds a few times every year, on numerous social media platforms. It's no more true today than the day it was squeezed out the sphincter of it's author.

Fine. You think that to be so. Please show us what aspects of the study are materially mistaken and how they are. Short of your doing that, however, you refutation is merely an empty claim. Perhaps you two -- AnCap'n_Murica and 2aguy -- care to collaborate on your empirical refutation of the correlations found and identified in the study?

 

[OldLady]

Thread Note/Reminder:

As implied in the OP, this is not the thread for you to internalize the findings of the paper. This is not the thread to do anything other than directly address the facts and conclusions drawn from them with equally rigorous arguments, not mere pronouncements of dissent. What that means is this thread exists for you to offer corroborating or dissenting ideas that directly pertain to :

• The study's methodology
• The interpretations applied to specific findings

....and that are supported with credible methodology and analysis of your own.

320, you can take all the fun out of the most interesting topics.

Scientific journals once published studies on phrenology, too. Anti-feminism articles by scholars abounded:
Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy.[26]

Just because it's in a scholarly journal doesn't make it right, is my point.

Blue:
Truly, I don't want to entreat for unsubstantiated claims and assertions from folks who don't like the study's findings. I put the thread in the CDZ because I'm not interested in conjecture. If someone disagrees with the study and it's implications -- at the moment I don't, but I'm open to the possibility that the findings are amiss -- fine, they can share their soundly determined reasons for why they do. Otherwise, I'm not interested in what folks have to say about it for as you know, opinions are like bellybuttons....I can editorialize and speculate as well as anyone can. I don't need to have a discussion here to do that.

Red:
I agree with you, at least in the abstract; however, if one is going to oppose the findings of an empirically based study's conclusions, the only way to credibly do so is by identifying material flaws in the methodology or inferences drawn from the data and analysis of it, and then empirically showing the materiality of the flaws, that is to say, show precisely how and why flaws are relevant and worthy of being causes for the study's conclusions' invalidity. Sure, one can call Dr. Kanazawa's paper an "article," but what it is is more accurately described as a reporting of results. It's certainly not an editorial.

That's just too much work. Well, maybe not for some folks. Good luck !

 

[320 Years of History]

Thread Note/Reminder:

As implied in the OP, this is not the thread for you to internalize the findings of the paper. This is not the thread to do anything other than directly address the facts and conclusions drawn from them with equally rigorous arguments, not mere pronouncements of dissent. What that means is this thread exists for you to offer corroborating or dissenting ideas that directly pertain to :

• The study's methodology
• The interpretations applied to specific findings

....and that are supported with credible methodology and analysis of your own.

320, you can take all the fun out of the most interesting topics.

Scientific journals once published studies on phrenology, too. Anti-feminism articles by scholars abounded:
Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy.[26]

Just because it's in a scholarly journal doesn't make it right, is my point.

Blue:
Truly, I don't want to entreat for unsubstantiated claims and assertions from folks who don't like the study's findings. I put the thread in the CDZ because I'm not interested in conjecture. If someone disagrees with the study and it's implications -- at the moment I don't, but I'm open to the possibility that the findings are amiss -- fine, they can share their soundly determined reasons for why they do. Otherwise, I'm not interested in what folks have to say about it for as you know, opinions are like bellybuttons....I can editorialize and speculate as well as anyone can. I don't need to have a discussion here to do that.

Red:
I agree with you, at least in the abstract; however, if one is going to oppose the findings of an empirically based study's conclusions, the only way to credibly do so is by identifying material flaws in the methodology or inferences drawn from the data and analysis of it, and then empirically showing the materiality of the flaws, that is to say, show precisely how and why flaws are relevant and worthy of being causes for the study's conclusions' invalidity. Sure, one can call Dr. Kanazawa's paper an "article," but what it is is more accurately described as a reporting of results. It's certainly not an editorial.

That's just too much work. Well, maybe not for some folks. Good luck !

Well, if that's "too much work," doesn't it stand to reason that one who's unwilling to perform that work has no credible basis for having an opposing point of view or refuting the findings of the research? I mean really. Does it make any sense to read a rigorous study and disagree with it's findings and implications -- essentially have a conflicting hypothesis -- and yet do nothing to determine whether one's counter-hypothesis is indeed accurate? Wouldn't doing that (refuting something without having a sound basis for doing so) be a blatant illustration of one's being less intelligent rather than more intelligent?

 

[JoeMoma]

I know this is a little off topic, but why start a thread when you promise to leave the forum come election day?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Fine. You think that to be so. Please show us what aspects of the study are materially mistaken and how they are. Short of your doing that, however, you refutation is merely an empty claim. Perhaps you two -- AnCap'n_Murica and 2aguy -- care to collaborate on your empirical refutation of the correlations found and identified in the study?

It presumes correlation equals causation, which is one of the most basic of flaws in logic.

Of course, you need go no further than any social media platform to find scads upon scads of leftists who couldn't reason their way out of the bathroom. In fact, as Rand very poignantly pointed out on numerous occasions, progressivism/liberalism is an outright rejection of reason and logic, therefore a rejection of intellect.

 

[320 Years of History]

Fine. You think that to be so. Please show us what aspects of the study are materially mistaken and how they are. Short of your doing that, however, you refutation is merely an empty claim. Perhaps you two -- AnCap'n_Murica and 2aguy -- care to collaborate on your empirical refutation of the correlations found and identified in the study?

It presumes correlation equals causation, which is one of the most basic of flaws in logic.

Of course, you need go no further than any social media platform to find scads upon scads of leftists who couldn't reason their way out of the bathroom. In fact, as Rand very poignantly pointed out on numerous occasions, progressivism/liberalism is an outright rejection of reason and logic, therefore a rejection of intellect.

Red:
Actually, the author does not make any such assertion. What the research does is consider a principle -- the Savanna Principle -- and test to find out whether the predictions implied by that principle are indeed borne out. That's made clear in the paper's conclusion section as well as at it's outset:

At the outset:
The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, derived from the Savanna Principle and a theory of the evolution of general intelligence, suggests that more intelligent individuals may be more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values and preferences (such as liberalism and atheism and, for men, sexual exclusivity) than less intelligent individuals, but that general intelligence may have no effect on the acquisition and espousal of evolutionarily familiar values (for children, marriage, family, and friends).

In the conclusion:
Why do intelligent parents tend simultaneously to be liberal and atheist, to pass on their genetic tendencies toward liberalism and atheism to their intelligent children? Why are there not an equal (or greater) number of intelligent parents who are conservative and/or religious, to pass on their conservative and religious tendencies to their intelligent children? Why are there not many less intelligent parents who are liberal and atheist? Further, behavior genetics cannot explain why the value on sexual exclusivity (if heritable) is transmitted only to sons but not to daughters. The Savanna IQ Interaction Hypothesis can offer one possible explanation for the coexistence of general intelligence and certain values.​

Also, in the conclusion and after having posed the questions above, the author proceeds to discuss a variety of possible causes for the correlation that his research found. After doing so, the author writes:

The origin of values and preferences remains a very important theoretical puzzle for social and behavioral sciences, and the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, at the intersection of evolutionary psychology and intelligence research, provides one deductive explanation from theoretical first principles for why individuals have certain values and preferences.​

I suggest you actually read the paper rather than merely assuming it says something it does not.

 

[OldLady]

Thread Note/Reminder:

As implied in the OP, this is not the thread for you to internalize the findings of the paper. This is not the thread to do anything other than directly address the facts and conclusions drawn from them with equally rigorous arguments, not mere pronouncements of dissent. What that means is this thread exists for you to offer corroborating or dissenting ideas that directly pertain to :

• The study's methodology
• The interpretations applied to specific findings

....and that are supported with credible methodology and analysis of your own.

320, you can take all the fun out of the most interesting topics.

Scientific journals once published studies on phrenology, too. Anti-feminism articles by scholars abounded:
Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy.[26]

Just because it's in a scholarly journal doesn't make it right, is my point.

Blue:
Truly, I don't want to entreat for unsubstantiated claims and assertions from folks who don't like the study's findings. I put the thread in the CDZ because I'm not interested in conjecture. If someone disagrees with the study and it's implications -- at the moment I don't, but I'm open to the possibility that the findings are amiss -- fine, they can share their soundly determined reasons for why they do. Otherwise, I'm not interested in what folks have to say about it for as you know, opinions are like bellybuttons....I can editorialize and speculate as well as anyone can. I don't need to have a discussion here to do that.

Red:
I agree with you, at least in the abstract; however, if one is going to oppose the findings of an empirically based study's conclusions, the only way to credibly do so is by identifying material flaws in the methodology or inferences drawn from the data and analysis of it, and then empirically showing the materiality of the flaws, that is to say, show precisely how and why flaws are relevant and worthy of being causes for the study's conclusions' invalidity. Sure, one can call Dr. Kanazawa's paper an "article," but what it is is more accurately described as a reporting of results. It's certainly not an editorial.

That's just too much work. Well, maybe not for some folks. Good luck !

Well, if that's "too much work," doesn't it stand to reason that one who's unwilling to perform that work has no credible basis for having an opposing point of view or refuting the findings of the research? I mean really. Does it make any sense to read a rigorous study and disagree with it's findings and implications -- essentially have a conflicting hypothesis -- and yet do nothing to determine whether one's counter-hypothesis is indeed accurate? Wouldn't doing that (refuting something without having a sound basis for doing so) be a blatant illustration of one's being less intelligent rather than more intelligent?

Yessir--I'm dumber'n a rock. Numb'r 'n a pounded thumb. Don't think I'm knocking your interest in the subject. I did my time reading rigorous studies and picking apart methodologies and the validity of hypotheses and findings, but it's an activity a bit more scholarly than I wish to get into now that I live in Great Unwashedville.
I think it's lovely that the author of your study seems to be implying I'm smart and all (being a liberal and an atheist) but .....
You'll be so glad to be shut of us, won't you?

 

[JoeMoma]

Thread Note/Reminder:

As implied in the OP, this is not the thread for you to internalize the findings of the paper. This is not the thread to do anything other than directly address the facts and conclusions drawn from them with equally rigorous arguments, not mere pronouncements of dissent. What that means is this thread exists for you to offer corroborating or dissenting ideas that directly pertain to :

• The study's methodology
• The interpretations applied to specific findings

....and that are supported with credible methodology and analysis of your own.

320, you can take all the fun out of the most interesting topics.

Scientific journals once published studies on phrenology, too. Anti-feminism articles by scholars abounded:
Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy.[26]

Just because it's in a scholarly journal doesn't make it right, is my point.

Blue:
Truly, I don't want to entreat for unsubstantiated claims and assertions from folks who don't like the study's findings. I put the thread in the CDZ because I'm not interested in conjecture. If someone disagrees with the study and it's implications -- at the moment I don't, but I'm open to the possibility that the findings are amiss -- fine, they can share their soundly determined reasons for why they do. Otherwise, I'm not interested in what folks have to say about it for as you know, opinions are like bellybuttons....I can editorialize and speculate as well as anyone can. I don't need to have a discussion here to do that.

Red:
I agree with you, at least in the abstract; however, if one is going to oppose the findings of an empirically based study's conclusions, the only way to credibly do so is by identifying material flaws in the methodology or inferences drawn from the data and analysis of it, and then empirically showing the materiality of the flaws, that is to say, show precisely how and why flaws are relevant and worthy of being causes for the study's conclusions' invalidity. Sure, one can call Dr. Kanazawa's paper an "article," but what it is is more accurately described as a reporting of results. It's certainly not an editorial.

That's just too much work. Well, maybe not for some folks. Good luck !

Well, if that's "too much work," doesn't it stand to reason that one who's unwilling to perform that work has no credible basis for having an opposing point of view or refuting the findings of the research? I mean really. Does it make any sense to read a rigorous study and disagree with it's findings and implications -- essentially have a conflicting hypothesis -- and yet do nothing to determine whether one's counter-hypothesis is indeed accurate? Wouldn't doing that (refuting something without having a sound basis for doing so) be a blatant illustration of one's being less intelligent rather than more intelligent?

Yessir--I'm dumber'n a rock. Numb'r 'n a pounded thumb. Don't think I'm knocking your interest in the subject. I did my time reading rigorous studies and picking apart methodologies and the validity of hypotheses and findings, but it's an activity a bit more scholarly than I wish to get into now that I live in Great Unwashedville.
I think it's lovely that the author of your study seems to be implying I'm smart and all (being a liberal and an atheist) but .....
You'll be so glad to be shut of us, won't you?

Does anyone sense intellectual snobbery in this thread?
(And other threads by the same author?)

 

[OldLady]

No one's perfect. 320 doesn't mind some teasing; he's alright.

 

[320 Years of History]

Thread Note/Reminder:

As implied in the OP, this is not the thread for you to internalize the findings of the paper. This is not the thread to do anything other than directly address the facts and conclusions drawn from them with equally rigorous arguments, not mere pronouncements of dissent. What that means is this thread exists for you to offer corroborating or dissenting ideas that directly pertain to :

• The study's methodology
• The interpretations applied to specific findings

....and that are supported with credible methodology and analysis of your own.

320, you can take all the fun out of the most interesting topics.

Scientific journals once published studies on phrenology, too. Anti-feminism articles by scholars abounded:
Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy.[26]

Just because it's in a scholarly journal doesn't make it right, is my point.

Blue:
Truly, I don't want to entreat for unsubstantiated claims and assertions from folks who don't like the study's findings. I put the thread in the CDZ because I'm not interested in conjecture. If someone disagrees with the study and it's implications -- at the moment I don't, but I'm open to the possibility that the findings are amiss -- fine, they can share their soundly determined reasons for why they do. Otherwise, I'm not interested in what folks have to say about it for as you know, opinions are like bellybuttons....I can editorialize and speculate as well as anyone can. I don't need to have a discussion here to do that.

Red:
I agree with you, at least in the abstract; however, if one is going to oppose the findings of an empirically based study's conclusions, the only way to credibly do so is by identifying material flaws in the methodology or inferences drawn from the data and analysis of it, and then empirically showing the materiality of the flaws, that is to say, show precisely how and why flaws are relevant and worthy of being causes for the study's conclusions' invalidity. Sure, one can call Dr. Kanazawa's paper an "article," but what it is is more accurately described as a reporting of results. It's certainly not an editorial.

That's just too much work. Well, maybe not for some folks. Good luck !

Well, if that's "too much work," doesn't it stand to reason that one who's unwilling to perform that work has no credible basis for having an opposing point of view or refuting the findings of the research? I mean really. Does it make any sense to read a rigorous study and disagree with it's findings and implications -- essentially have a conflicting hypothesis -- and yet do nothing to determine whether one's counter-hypothesis is indeed accurate? Wouldn't doing that (refuting something without having a sound basis for doing so) be a blatant illustration of one's being less intelligent rather than more intelligent?

Yessir--I'm dumber'n a rock. Numb'r 'n a pounded thumb. Don't think I'm knocking your interest in the subject. I did my time reading rigorous studies and picking apart methodologies and the validity of hypotheses and findings, but it's an activity a bit more scholarly than I wish to get into now that I live in Great Unwashedville.
I think it's lovely that the author of your study seems to be implying I'm smart and all (being a liberal and an atheist) but .....

You'll be so glad to be shut of us, won't you?

Red:
I can understand one's, anyone's, not being willing to closely examine the methodology and so on. It's work to do that. I'm merely saying that if one isn't willing to do that, one can't justifiably air a "loud and strong" refutation or denouncement of the study's findings and expect to be taken seriously.

Blue:
Well, I don't really see the study's results as something to internalize or otherwise drill down to and apply on a personal level, for the data don't support doing that.

Pink:
If you're referring to my the coming end of my obligation to be here, yes. More importantly a youngster who lacks the means to attend a very good school will be glad that I took on the wager to be here and followed through with it in order to make it possible for him to obtain a better education and boost his chances for realizing future and lifelong success as a result of having had something of a more advantaged foundation than he'd have obtained in the D.C. public school system.

(Technically, that end has come; I've been an active and contributing member for a year. I committed myself to remaining until the 10th, so I will.)

 

[320 Years of History]

320, you can take all the fun out of the most interesting topics.

Scientific journals once published studies on phrenology, too. Anti-feminism articles by scholars abounded:
Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy.[26]

Just because it's in a scholarly journal doesn't make it right, is my point.

Blue:
Truly, I don't want to entreat for unsubstantiated claims and assertions from folks who don't like the study's findings. I put the thread in the CDZ because I'm not interested in conjecture. If someone disagrees with the study and it's implications -- at the moment I don't, but I'm open to the possibility that the findings are amiss -- fine, they can share their soundly determined reasons for why they do. Otherwise, I'm not interested in what folks have to say about it for as you know, opinions are like bellybuttons....I can editorialize and speculate as well as anyone can. I don't need to have a discussion here to do that.

Red:
I agree with you, at least in the abstract; however, if one is going to oppose the findings of an empirically based study's conclusions, the only way to credibly do so is by identifying material flaws in the methodology or inferences drawn from the data and analysis of it, and then empirically showing the materiality of the flaws, that is to say, show precisely how and why flaws are relevant and worthy of being causes for the study's conclusions' invalidity. Sure, one can call Dr. Kanazawa's paper an "article," but what it is is more accurately described as a reporting of results. It's certainly not an editorial.

That's just too much work. Well, maybe not for some folks. Good luck !

Well, if that's "too much work," doesn't it stand to reason that one who's unwilling to perform that work has no credible basis for having an opposing point of view or refuting the findings of the research? I mean really. Does it make any sense to read a rigorous study and disagree with it's findings and implications -- essentially have a conflicting hypothesis -- and yet do nothing to determine whether one's counter-hypothesis is indeed accurate? Wouldn't doing that (refuting something without having a sound basis for doing so) be a blatant illustration of one's being less intelligent rather than more intelligent?

Yessir--I'm dumber'n a rock. Numb'r 'n a pounded thumb. Don't think I'm knocking your interest in the subject. I did my time reading rigorous studies and picking apart methodologies and the validity of hypotheses and findings, but it's an activity a bit more scholarly than I wish to get into now that I live in Great Unwashedville.
I think it's lovely that the author of your study seems to be implying I'm smart and all (being a liberal and an atheist) but .....
You'll be so glad to be shut of us, won't you?

Does anyone sense intellectual snobbery in this thread?
(And other threads by the same author?)

Brown:
If the study were to present ideas that one could legitimately apply on a personal level, it might be legitimate to infer some intellectual snobbery be behind and in some of the comments about it and in this thread. But the study doesn't say that you, I, or any other individual is liberal therefore smart, or conservative and therefore not smart. (Ditto atheist or monogamous.) Accordingly, while you and others may infer there be intellectual snobbery in the thread, that providing a vehicle for one to express that attitude isn't a reason for which this thread was created.

 

[OldLady]

320, you can take all the fun out of the most interesting topics.

Scientific journals once published studies on phrenology, too. Anti-feminism articles by scholars abounded:
Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy.[26]

Just because it's in a scholarly journal doesn't make it right, is my point.

Blue:
Truly, I don't want to entreat for unsubstantiated claims and assertions from folks who don't like the study's findings. I put the thread in the CDZ because I'm not interested in conjecture. If someone disagrees with the study and it's implications -- at the moment I don't, but I'm open to the possibility that the findings are amiss -- fine, they can share their soundly determined reasons for why they do. Otherwise, I'm not interested in what folks have to say about it for as you know, opinions are like bellybuttons....I can editorialize and speculate as well as anyone can. I don't need to have a discussion here to do that.

Red:
I agree with you, at least in the abstract; however, if one is going to oppose the findings of an empirically based study's conclusions, the only way to credibly do so is by identifying material flaws in the methodology or inferences drawn from the data and analysis of it, and then empirically showing the materiality of the flaws, that is to say, show precisely how and why flaws are relevant and worthy of being causes for the study's conclusions' invalidity. Sure, one can call Dr. Kanazawa's paper an "article," but what it is is more accurately described as a reporting of results. It's certainly not an editorial.

That's just too much work. Well, maybe not for some folks. Good luck !

Well, if that's "too much work," doesn't it stand to reason that one who's unwilling to perform that work has no credible basis for having an opposing point of view or refuting the findings of the research? I mean really. Does it make any sense to read a rigorous study and disagree with it's findings and implications -- essentially have a conflicting hypothesis -- and yet do nothing to determine whether one's counter-hypothesis is indeed accurate? Wouldn't doing that (refuting something without having a sound basis for doing so) be a blatant illustration of one's being less intelligent rather than more intelligent?

Yessir--I'm dumber'n a rock. Numb'r 'n a pounded thumb. Don't think I'm knocking your interest in the subject. I did my time reading rigorous studies and picking apart methodologies and the validity of hypotheses and findings, but it's an activity a bit more scholarly than I wish to get into now that I live in Great Unwashedville.
I think it's lovely that the author of your study seems to be implying I'm smart and all (being a liberal and an atheist) but .....

You'll be so glad to be shut of us, won't you?

Red:
I can understand one's, anyone's, not being willing to closely examine the methodology and so on. It's work to do that. I'm merely saying that if one isn't willing to do that, one can't justifiably air a "loud and strong" refutation or denouncement of the study's findings and expect to be taken seriously.

Blue:
Well, I don't really see the study's results as something to internalize or otherwise drill down to and apply on a personal level, for the data don't support doing that.

Pink:
If you're referring to my the coming end of my obligation to be here, yes. More importantly a youngster who lacks the means to attend a very good school will be glad that I took on the wager to be here and followed through with it in order to make it possible for him to obtain a better education and boost his chances for realizing future and lifelong success as a result of having had something of a more advantaged foundation than he'd have obtained in the D.C. public school system.

(Technically, that end has come; I've been an active and contributing member for a year. I committed myself to remaining until the 10th, so I will.)

He must be so excited and probably a little nervous at the same time. Good job, 320!

 

[320 Years of History]

No one's perfect. 320 doesn't mind some teasing; he's alright.

LOL Thank you.

Was I being teased? I wasn't even aware I was. LOL

But, yes, I take teasing quite well for I'm very aware of my own strengths and weaknesses. Some folks think I take caustic insults well too because, in contrast to their reaction, I simply ignore folks who react rudely or crassly to my expressed thoughts.

 

[320 Years of History]

Blue:
Truly, I don't want to entreat for unsubstantiated claims and assertions from folks who don't like the study's findings. I put the thread in the CDZ because I'm not interested in conjecture. If someone disagrees with the study and it's implications -- at the moment I don't, but I'm open to the possibility that the findings are amiss -- fine, they can share their soundly determined reasons for why they do. Otherwise, I'm not interested in what folks have to say about it for as you know, opinions are like bellybuttons....I can editorialize and speculate as well as anyone can. I don't need to have a discussion here to do that.

Red:
I agree with you, at least in the abstract; however, if one is going to oppose the findings of an empirically based study's conclusions, the only way to credibly do so is by identifying material flaws in the methodology or inferences drawn from the data and analysis of it, and then empirically showing the materiality of the flaws, that is to say, show precisely how and why flaws are relevant and worthy of being causes for the study's conclusions' invalidity. Sure, one can call Dr. Kanazawa's paper an "article," but what it is is more accurately described as a reporting of results. It's certainly not an editorial.

That's just too much work. Well, maybe not for some folks. Good luck !

Well, if that's "too much work," doesn't it stand to reason that one who's unwilling to perform that work has no credible basis for having an opposing point of view or refuting the findings of the research? I mean really. Does it make any sense to read a rigorous study and disagree with it's findings and implications -- essentially have a conflicting hypothesis -- and yet do nothing to determine whether one's counter-hypothesis is indeed accurate? Wouldn't doing that (refuting something without having a sound basis for doing so) be a blatant illustration of one's being less intelligent rather than more intelligent?

Yessir--I'm dumber'n a rock. Numb'r 'n a pounded thumb. Don't think I'm knocking your interest in the subject. I did my time reading rigorous studies and picking apart methodologies and the validity of hypotheses and findings, but it's an activity a bit more scholarly than I wish to get into now that I live in Great Unwashedville.
I think it's lovely that the author of your study seems to be implying I'm smart and all (being a liberal and an atheist) but .....

You'll be so glad to be shut of us, won't you?

Red:
I can understand one's, anyone's, not being willing to closely examine the methodology and so on. It's work to do that. I'm merely saying that if one isn't willing to do that, one can't justifiably air a "loud and strong" refutation or denouncement of the study's findings and expect to be taken seriously.

Blue:
Well, I don't really see the study's results as something to internalize or otherwise drill down to and apply on a personal level, for the data don't support doing that.

Pink:
If you're referring to my the coming end of my obligation to be here, yes. More importantly a youngster who lacks the means to attend a very good school will be glad that I took on the wager to be here and followed through with it in order to make it possible for him to obtain a better education and boost his chances for realizing future and lifelong success as a result of having had something of a more advantaged foundation than he'd have obtained in the D.C. public school system.

(Technically, that end has come; I've been an active and contributing member for a year. I committed myself to remaining until the 10th, so I will.)

He must be so excited and probably a little nervous at the same time. Good job, 320!

Red:
That's exactly what he's feeling, but he's been provisionally admitted to the school and will begin there next fall. All he's got to do between then and now is maintain his grades. I think he's more concerned about the socialization process for even though the school is in D.C. and he lives in D.C., he'll be a boarder at the school. His mother and I discussed that and we agree that getting him exposed to and familiar with a very different way of life and worldview -- one that comes from other kids his age and whom he'll get to know well -- will be a huge benefit for him as well as alleviating some of her financial burden to provide for him. I suspect that won't in the long run be a bad thing for either of their futures.

Other:
I'm and my friend who catalyzed this process are pretty excited too. I because I think I can convince him to step up his contributions to disadvantaged kids by becoming, in concert with me, a regular benefactor to more grossly disadvantaged kids and making it possible for them to enroll as boarding students rather than as day-hops.

I've long had a dream of founding a 6th - 12th grade boarding school for disadvantaged kids (i.e., "rich kids" need not apply). The start-up and first 20 year costs and organizational management skills of doing that are quite daunting, however, as one can't much expect alumni funding to commence for quite some time and such a school obviously wouldn't charge tuition to cover costs. This experience -- my posts and my friends having read them and others on the site -- seems to have helped cultivate an interest among a few of my friends and close acquaintances for doing so as well. With some luck and continued hard work, it may be that I can generate enough excitement among them to get them to sign onto the idea and obtain support for it from their contacts as well.

 

[OldLady]

I think he's more concerned about the socialization process
Of course, he's a kid. Expect a lot of complaints about the food, the rules, the homework at first. He'll do great, though, I'm sure.

A prep school for disadvantaged youth--good idea. Education is the great equalizer. And of course, the big problem is funding it. Maybe if Trump wins, you could be one of his private schools of choice.
So if he wins, it will give you one reason not to slit your throat.

 

[Rightist]

I red this paper and obviously is not clear in the meaning of "liberals". Our world has big problem with semantic. Certain words were stolen and the meaning was changed up side down. Liberals is one of those words.
From this perspective this paper doesn't seem to be representative.
My private experience is opposite to the findings in this paper but this is my only experience not serious university study.

 

[320 Years of History]

I red this paper and obviously is not clear in the meaning of "liberals".

I'm going to call this "strike two." Seeing as this is not baseball, you don't get a third as goes what the paper's author does or does not say or imply in the paper.

Are you sure you read the paper? Just how carefully did you read it? It seems not carefully at all, assuming you did indeed read it.

The author writes:

The results presented in Tables 1 and 3 indicate that more intelligent individuals are more likely to identify themselves as liberal as opposed to conservative. But what does such self-identification mean? Is it consistent with the operational definition of liberalism used in this paper? How are self-identified liberals different from self-identified conservatives?​

The author responds just a few paragraphs later and very clearly, ", I provisionally define liberalism as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others." (That statement is found in the section titled "WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A LIBERAL IN THE CONTEMPORARY UNITED STATES?.")

Prior to making that attestation of what "liberal" means in the context of the paper, the author goes through a litany of illustrative stances that he shows empirically are very significantly associated with the views of individuals who self-identify as liberals.

Self-identified liberals in the GSS samples are significantly more likely to agree with the statements "It is the responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income between people with high incomes and those with low incomes’’ (r 5 .208, p \ .00001, n 5 9,306), and with the statement ‘‘The government in Washington ought to reduce the income differences between the rich and the poor, perhaps by raising the taxes of wealthy families or by giving income assistance to the poor’’ and less likely to agree with the statement ‘‘The government should not concern itself with reducing this income difference between the rich and the poor’’ (r 5 .217, p \ .00001, n 5 12,122).

However, even though more intelligent GSS respondents are more likely to identify themselves as liberals (Table 3, Column 1), they are actually less likely to agree with the statement ‘‘It is the responsibility of the government.’’ (r 5 –.236, p \ .00001, n 5 5,849) or the statement ‘‘The government in Washington ought to reduce.’’ (r 5 –.167, p \ .00001, n 5 5,814). Net of the same demographic controls as in Table 3 (age, sex, race, education, earnings, religion, and survey year), intelligence is significantly negatively associated with agreement with the first statement (b 5 –.147, p \ .00001) or the second statement (b 5 –.067, p \ .00001) in multiple ordinal regression equations.
​

Given the preceding and the author's declaration of how he's defined "liberal," it should be quite clear just what "liberal" means within the paper's/study's context. I can't speak to why that is insufficiently clear to you, but I am going to hope your befuddlement is not shared by most readers of the paper.

 

[Rightist]

I didn't say that author didn't define liberal. He did. I'm saying that the people may not get it. I will explain in my case.
If you ask me about this. I would say: I'm liberal. It means I accept every human behavior as long as this behavior doesn't harm others. But if you will go deeper you will realize that I'm conservative in that "political" meaning.
That's the reason why I said semantic is a key. I realize, that in "political" meaning I'm not liberal only few years ago when I met "political" liberal. Since than I don't describe myself as a liberal.