KRISTEN'S BOARD
KB - a better class of pervert

News:

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

Lois · 1760

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,152
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-56
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=C2

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Melissa

  • Guest
Reply #1 on: February 28, 2010, 12:54:32 AM
Wasn't this started elsewhere?



DrRick947

  • Guest
Reply #2 on: March 02, 2010, 10:39:41 PM
Wasn't this started elsewhere?

Yes, I started it in the Politics section.  Newbie me probably put it in the wrong place ... sorry!



Melissa

  • Guest
Reply #3 on: March 03, 2010, 10:25:26 AM
Wasn't this started elsewhere?

Yes, I started it in the Politics section.  Newbie me probably put it in the wrong place ... sorry!

Tis okay.  I'm not even sure why there is both the "1408" and Politics forum.



Offline phtlc

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 4,582
    • Woos/Boos: +208/-6
    • Gender: Male
Reply #4 on: December 30, 2023, 11:02:35 AM
I used to work in a statistical research support position when I was younger. I've never in my life seen a person with a political position conduct a "statistical" study and say "Wow...the numbers show that I was wrong. I guess I will change my opinion". I've had people tell me to do different things with the stats that technically were not lying but grossly misrepresented the truth. From what I see 100% of all people with an agenda, always seem to conduct a study that "statistically" proves their "objective" and "unbiased" opinion.

While you're waiting in vain for that apology, why don't you make yourself useful by getting on your knees and opening your mouth


Offline Writers Bloque

  • 2022 KB Erotica Writer of the Year
  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,436
    • Woos/Boos: +234/-4
    • Gender: Male
  • You would think anything this fun would be illegal
Reply #5 on: December 30, 2023, 03:40:37 PM
But the study also did not count that there are a few noble prize winning scientists who were genius level who held religious beliefs. Einstein was Jewish. I don't see the correlation between having a religious belief and IQ, since IQ only identifies the "relative" intelligence of a person, but not the ability. People get smarter as they learn and put what they learn to use, and IQ measuring is a hot button topic in the sciences because its entirely situational, and does not reflect a persons abilities accurately. MENSA even stated once in a Scientific American article that their tests doesn't measure IQ in a standard format, but grades a persons ability to learn and adapt, which is one of the proven methods to accurately measure IQ.

Knowledge =/= Wisdom

Knowledge is just knowing something,

Wisdom is knowing when and how to use what you know.

View a list of all my stories here

To taste Heaven, one must play in Hell.


Offline Pornhubby

  • POY 2013
  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 7,502
    • Woos/Boos: +1610/-24
  • Ph.D in Perversity a/k/a_ToeinH2O
Reply #6 on: December 30, 2023, 11:54:58 PM
Wow. Phtlc pulled up a thread last commented on by MELISSA (whom I am not) in 2010.  That’s got to be some kind of record. LOL. 

I bet staci, Lois, and I are the only people here who remember her (him).

I did see a number of prominent GOP leaders this week, saying that the fact that college educated people tend to be politically liberal is proof that college “indoctrinates“ people to be leftist. Wouldn’t an equally valid conclusion be that smart people tend to be liberal? Because what I’ve seen here in my MAGA hat red state is that most people on the far right are not the brightest bulbs on the tree.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2023, 11:59:18 PM by Pornhubby »

”You can be mad as a mad dog at the way things went.  You can swear and curse the fates.  But when it comes to the end, you have to let go.” — The Curious Case of Benjamin Button


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,155
    • Woos/Boos: +3181/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #7 on: December 31, 2023, 03:45:00 PM

I used to work in a statistical research support position when I was younger. I've never in my life seen a person with a political position conduct a "statistical" study and say "Wow...the numbers show that I was wrong. I guess I will change my opinion". I've had people tell me to do different things with the stats that technically were not lying but grossly misrepresented the truth. From what I see 100% of all people with an agenda, always seem to conduct a study that "statistically" proves their "objective" and "unbiased" opinion.


It's wonderful to see you back again, even if its only briefly.

And it's even more wonderful to see you engendering thought-provoking discussions, just like you used to.

I agree with your main point: While I have, on several occasions, changed my opinion or my views based on compelling arguments presented by others, statistical studies like this, especially ones based on IQ measurements, are not very compelling to me. And I agree: The study, and especially the analysis of the study, do seem to promote an agenda.

I've long thought the assertions that atheists are smarter than religious believers -- or it's parallel, smart people are atheists, and only dumb people are religious believers -- to be relative nonsense. There are thousands of counter-arguments that render these assertions to be gross generalizations.

Most important, the arguments based on following evolutionary imperatives quickly fall apart, since human beings are able to make free choices that counter our evolutionary imperatives. This especially includes every type of not specifically procreative sex acts. Every time a couple (or, I suppose, more) chose to have sex in a non-procreative manner, it flies in the face of evolutionary imperatives. And it's especially true with women.





"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline phtlc

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 4,582
    • Woos/Boos: +208/-6
    • Gender: Male
Reply #8 on: January 03, 2024, 10:44:47 AM
It's wonderful to see you

I get that a lot  :emot_laughing:



I agree with your main point

I get that a lot  :emot_laughing:

While I have, on several occasions, changed my opinion or my views based on compelling arguments presented by others, statistical studies like this, especially ones based on IQ measurements, are not very compelling to me. And I agree: The study, and especially the analysis of the study, do seem to promote an agenda.

I think until left and right, liberal and conservative, democrat and republican can actually talk to each other the west will see more political division, as extremist politicians take the reins. I suspect that most people want the same things for their kid’s future. If both sides can refrain from the name calling and personal attacks, the nest generation will benefit.





While you're waiting in vain for that apology, why don't you make yourself useful by getting on your knees and opening your mouth


Offline MissBarbara

  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 16,155
    • Woos/Boos: +3181/-41
    • Gender: Female
Reply #9 on: January 03, 2024, 02:37:52 PM

I think until left and right, liberal and conservative, democrat and republican can actually talk to each other the west will see more political division, as extremist politicians take the reins. I suspect that most people want the same things for their kid’s future. If both sides can refrain from the name calling and personal attacks, the nest generation will benefit.


I can only speak to the U.S., since I'm relatively ignorant of Canadian politics.

However, down here, the "deep political divides" are vastly overstated. Part of the confusion stems from one source: Donald Trump. And it's not Trump's specific positions and platforms, it's the fact that he will take a position on anything, and change that position almost whimsically, in order to resonate with the electorate. In other words, there is a Trump vs. Not Trump divide, but it isn't exactly political and, most important, the "battles" are primarily fought on social media, and not as much in real life.

The many posts you see on social media about an "upcoming civil war" can be safely ignored. Over and above the fact that there are no geographical divisions, as in the original civil war, it's a war of words, and not bullets and sabers. The violent attack on the Capitol Building was carried out by a group that numbered not more than around 5,000 people. They represented a microscopic percent of the electorate (if my math is correct, it's 0.003%), and that "civil war" was over in about two hours.

Otherwise, while it's true that Trump is an "extremist politician," Joe Biden most certainly is not. In Canadian and European terms, he's to the right of center, and there's nothing particularly radical about him.





"Sometimes the best things in life are a hot girl and a cold beer."



Offline Clitical Thinking

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 2,141
    • Woos/Boos: +432/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #10 on: January 05, 2024, 10:12:55 PM
Joe Biden most certainly is not. In Canadian and European terms, he's to the right of center, and there's nothing particularly radical about him.

One thing I always find amusing is when people talk about the Extreme Left and the Radical Left, when in fact American politics is a relatively narrow band on the center-right of the spectrum. Even our resident "socialist," Bernie Sanders, says he's not in favor of centralized planning, so he's not really a socialist or part of any extreme/radical end of the spectrum.



Offline phtlc

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 4,582
    • Woos/Boos: +208/-6
    • Gender: Male
Reply #11 on: September 12, 2024, 03:17:15 AM
I don't see college educated people as all being liberal at all. Nor would I necessarily  say that all professors indoctrinate. My experience was that in the vocational programs there was a wide range of political views, ranging from left to right with most somewhere in the middle. Where the hard leftist indoctrination  shows itself is in the humanities programs.

While you're waiting in vain for that apology, why don't you make yourself useful by getting on your knees and opening your mouth