Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent

[Mac1958]

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.

The problem is ideology. These groups may or may not be more intelligent than others (and my personal guess is that they are, in general), but once they allow themselves to fall victim to a partisan ideology, their intelligence is badly compromised, even wasted.

Adherence to a hardcore partisan ideology distorts perceptions (incoming information), thought processes (internal analysis) and dissemination (outgoing communication in the form of spin, distortion, deflect, lies) to the point where an otherwise intelligent person has willingly detached themselves from reality. All they see, all they know, is their ideological echo chamber, their little side of the playground.

Once a person has allowed themselves to fall prey, they become narcissistic, intolerant of new ideas & possibilities, and worst of all for an intelligent person, incurious and rigid.
.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Pseudo-science for pseudo-intellectuals.

Are Conservatives Dumber Than Liberals?

 

[esthermoon]

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....

How do you know they really believed? People didn't admit disbelief back then. Similar to how gays were in the closet.

And what about all the scientific discoveries by atheist?

And even if a theist discovers or invents something or is intelligent. Perhaps their experiencing cognitive dissonance and wishful thinking

the international socialists and national socialists were atheist.......some of the German version were pagan's but the greatest mass murderers were atheist socialists....

I'm not sure national socialist were atheist

Religious aspects of Nazism - Wikipedia

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

The problem is ideology. These groups may or may not be more intelligent than others (and my personal guess is that they are, in general), but once they allow themselves to fall victim to a partisan ideology, their intelligence is badly compromised, even wasted.

Adherence to a hardcore partisan ideology distorts perceptions (incoming information), thought processes (internal analysis) and dissemination (outgoing communication in the form of spin, distortion, deflect, lies) to the point where an otherwise intelligent person has willingly detached themselves from reality. All they see, all they know, is their ideological echo chamber, their little side of the playground.

Once a person has allowed themselves to fall prey, they become narcissistic, intolerant of new ideas & possibilities, and worst of all for an intelligent person, incurious and rigid.
.

Red:
Exactly.

 

[esthermoon]

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.

Red:
Well, what credible basis have you for thinking that? Gut feelings alone -- no matter what engenders them -- are not credible bases for refuting that which has been empirically established and gone through the double-blind peer review process that is required by manuscripts submitted for publication in Social Psychology Quarterly.

It's just my opinion I don't have any empiric or scientific evidence
To be honest I have some empiric evidences that show something.
For example Gregor Mendel was the pioneer of modern genetics and he was an augustinian monk
That proves not all religious people are dumb.
I can say you can find dumbs everywhere

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

My personal experience and observation refutes liberals being smarter, in fact many are brainless sheep. Accounts, Engineers, those people who are good at hard, objective sciences and studies tend to be conservatives.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Liberals in my experience know more, but they understand nothing. Conservatives know less, but they.... nah, most of them do not really understand anything either.

While you are all dumbass tools, I would by lying if I told you that liberals were not generally more intelligent than conservatives.

Said the blind man sitting in the ivory tower.

 

[OldLady]

Liberals in my experience know more, but they understand nothing. Conservatives know less, but they.... nah, most of them do not really understand anything either.

While you are all dumbass tools, I would by lying if I told you that liberals were not generally more intelligent than conservatives.

Said the blind man sitting in the ivory tower.

Onyx is a professor? Holy God.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Liberals in my experience know more, but they understand nothing. Conservatives know less, but they.... nah, most of them do not really understand anything either.

While you are all dumbass tools, I would by lying if I told you that liberals were not generally more intelligent than conservatives.

Said the blind man sitting in the ivory tower.

Onyx is a professor? Holy God.

Really, how do you know that? I mean it makes perfect sense. There are certain professions where job performance is not a criteria for advancement- by in large they are jobs in academia and government, and I throw economist into that as well.

 

[320 Years of History]

Liberals in my experience know more, but they understand nothing. Conservatives know less, but they.... nah, most of them do not really understand anything either.

While you are all dumbass tools, I would by lying if I told you that liberals were not generally more intelligent than conservatives.

Said the blind man sitting in the ivory tower.

Onyx is a professor? Holy God.

Incredulity reigns here too. LOL

 

[OldLady]

Liberals in my experience know more, but they understand nothing. Conservatives know less, but they.... nah, most of them do not really understand anything either.

While you are all dumbass tools, I would by lying if I told you that liberals were not generally more intelligent than conservatives.

Said the blind man sitting in the ivory tower.

Onyx is a professor? Holy God.

Really, how do you know that? I mean it makes perfect sense. There are certain professions where job performance is not a criteria for advancement- by in large they are jobs in academia and government, and I throw economist into that as well.

Geez, BTM, I just rushed to the assumption because you said he was in an ivory tower. That's where profs live. (I don't follow Onyx all that much, so I figured you knew something I missed.)
You shouldn't be so harsh on academia, though. I am very glad that there are still a few spots in life where making a buck isn't the only yardstick for success. Like Scarecrow, I do admire deep thoughts for their own sake.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This is simply a repeat of an earlier post in the CDZ which attempted similarly simplistic polemics for the purpose of trying to establish a link between intelligence and the joining of tribe left.

The truth of the matter is that there are stupid and brilliant people on both sides of the aisle, and if anything, the most intelligent of which do not view politics in terms as utterly simplistic as the O.P. Haven't we had enough of this "My team smart. My team good; your team stupid, your team poopoohead" banality?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Liberals in my experience know more, but they understand nothing. Conservatives know less, but they.... nah, most of them do not really understand anything either.

While you are all dumbass tools, I would by lying if I told you that liberals were not generally more intelligent than conservatives.

Said the blind man sitting in the ivory tower.

Onyx is a professor? Holy God.

Really, how do you know that? I mean it makes perfect sense. There are certain professions where job performance is not a criteria for advancement- by in large they are jobs in academia and government, and I throw economist into that as well.

Geez, BTM, I just rushed to the assumption because you said he was in an ivory tower. That's where profs live. (I don't follow Onyx all that much, so I figured you knew something I missed.)
You shouldn't be so harsh on academia, though. I am very glad that there are still a few spots in life where making a buck isn't the only yardstick for success. Like Scarecrow, I do admire deep thoughts for their own sake.

Valid points, but as someone who is paying for 2 kids to get a college degree, I am dismayed at the quality (lack of) teaching skills many tenured professors exhibit.

I only referenced "ivory tower" because of the tone of his post.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This is MY prediction: This thread will be deemed "baiting" and moved out of the CDZ.

I love me a strong liberal, don't get me wrong, but .... really. Have mercy on conservatives; they know not what they do.

Of course it is baiting. It exists for the sole purpose of inflating the ego of the person who posted it while denigrating the intelligence of those who do not agree.

If you wish to find a "strong liberal", I would suggest you look for an intelligent person who actually understands liberal principles, instead. This is simply a childish game of cowboys and Indians on display.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

My personal experience and observation refutes liberals being smarter, in fact many are brainless sheep. Accounts, Engineers, those people who are good at hard, objective sciences and studies tend to be conservatives.

Mine is that the greater a person's intelligence, the more they see shades of grey, and as well as their being more independent they are as their intelligence allows them to call bullshit even if those surrounding them all agree on something simply because they have been conditioned to do so. That scientific mind leads them to ask questions, most notably of which is WHY. Political correctness is the very antithesis of these tendencies, as there is no why and there are no shades of grey, only a fierce conformity to a self-reinforcing status quo.

 

[OldLady]

Two points:
1) Linking intelligence levels with a couple of handpicked "liberal" attitudes does not warrant the claim in the title.
2) There is no way this cannot be absorbed on a personal level; of course it was meant to be personalized. The study looks at level of education of INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE and the attitudes of INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE and comes to the conclusion it comes to. There is no way without individual people to study that this study could have been performed or its conclusions reached.

That said, it kind of makes sense that people with a more extensive education might, as a group, be more tolerant of others because the more you know, the more you realize we are all just people and lots are good and lots are not and a lot of us have a bunch of crazy ass beliefs and there's no sense arguing about it. There is truly nothing new under the sun.

That might be why colleges are under such attack as bastions of liberal thought. I dunno.

 

[OldLady]

Liberals in my experience know more, but they understand nothing. Conservatives know less, but they.... nah, most of them do not really understand anything either.

While you are all dumbass tools, I would by lying if I told you that liberals were not generally more intelligent than conservatives.

Said the blind man sitting in the ivory tower.

Onyx is a professor? Holy God.

Really, how do you know that? I mean it makes perfect sense. There are certain professions where job performance is not a criteria for advancement- by in large they are jobs in academia and government, and I throw economist into that as well.

Geez, BTM, I just rushed to the assumption because you said he was in an ivory tower. That's where profs live. (I don't follow Onyx all that much, so I figured you knew something I missed.)
You shouldn't be so harsh on academia, though. I am very glad that there are still a few spots in life where making a buck isn't the only yardstick for success. Like Scarecrow, I do admire deep thoughts for their own sake.

Valid points, but as someone who is paying for 2 kids to get a college degree, I am dismayed at the quality (lack of) teaching skills many tenured professors exhibit.

I only referenced "ivory tower" because of the tone of his post.

Yeah, I remember a couple of mine that couldn't instruct their way out of a paper sack, and they were education professors, mostly. LOL No worries, they will have enough good ones to make up for it.

 

[320 Years of History]

....1) Linking intelligence levels with a couple of handpicked "liberal" attitudes does not warrant the claim in the title.
....

??? The study/author doesn't draw a correlation between intelligence and liberal attitudes. Dr. Kanazawa identified the correlation between intelligence and liberal people, and then he tested to determine whether the correlations could be legitimately extrapolated to the population as a whole. (You'll recall he performed the study using two sample groups, one consisting of ~700 individuals and one consisting of ~20K individuals. That second group's size is part of why the "p-values" are so small.) The people self-identified as being liberal or conservative and the study uses some questions and statements to confirm, control for, and consistently apply the meaning of "liberal" as defined in the study.

 

[Iceweasel]

I must be an idiot. I clicked on this thread.

 

[320 Years of History]

...the greater a person's intelligence, the more they see shades of grey, and as well as their being more independent they are as their intelligence allows them to call bullshit even if those surrounding them all agree on something simply because they have been conditioned to do so. That scientific mind leads them to ask questions, most notably of which is WHY. Political correctness is the very antithesis of these tendencies, as there is no why and there are no shades of grey, only a fierce conformity to a self-reinforcing status quo.

Off Topic:
I think one can make a strong case that political correctness is the ultimate reflection of the understanding that one's expressed ideas (by word and/or action) can be either (1) construed differently by different people rather than only being interpretable in one and only one way, or (2) delivered so as to deliberately imbue one's words and deeds with a degree of ambiguity. In that regard, I think political correctness is very much about shades of grey.

I happen to be of the mind that it's unwise to surround oneself with and create in others uncertainty. It's for that reason, among others, that I despise political correctness. That said, I am also not of a mind to be so politically incorrect as to be inaptly rude. I don't mind being caustically honest when it's appropriate and needed that one be so, but one must exercise a high degree of integrity and circumspection in determining when are the right and wrong times to take that tack.