Study Shows Liberals, Atheists, And Monogamous Have Higher IQ's

Funny, for 8 years liberals claimed they lost Florida in 2000 because the ballots were so darn complicated.

103 does not make someone intelligent. My IQ is 148 and I'm very Conservative.

Big problem with the experimental design: the student self-identified as "very liberal" and "very conservative". What does that mean? The researchers would have done better to administer some generally accepted test -- agree/disagree statements, say -- to determine where along the ideological spectrum the students actually fell.

Plus: high school students. Really? What do they know about liberal/conservative? They probably think a conservative is someone who uses mild salsa on his nachos.

Where would an agnostic who was liberal for the first 35 years of life and later switched to conservative fit in this theory?

How many 7th graders even know if they are conservative or liberal, let alone identify themselves as either?
What definition of liberal are you using?
Seems the American Sociological Association has hurt it's reputation with the publication of such a poltically motivaved unsubstansive study

This study compares the self-reports of high school students to IQ. There is no good reason to extrapolate from self-reports to liberalism and no good reason to extrapolate high school students to the general population. If you look at how people vote rather than how they describe themselves, it is clear that voting left correlates with low income, low intelligence, criminality, abortion, divorce, sexual perversion and every other social pathology.

Given the ideological tendencies of teachers and the leftist bias in school curricula, it is not surprising that students who are more successful in school identify more strongly with their teachers' political views.

why where the results limited to those who self-identified as "very" conservative or "very" liberal? This is obviously a much smaller sample than all liberals vs. all conservatives

C'mon, This is peer reviewed "settled" science, it must be correct.

Are Asians really liberal?

The young tend to identify as "liberal" or "progressive" as they like what the definition of the word and yet are not familiar with the results of the ideology. These studies just seem to always tell more about the people conducting the study than the actual subject. It may also be a very bad time to mention "peer-review" to bolster one's claims. I think atheists are about as logical as theists. A true scientific approach with no reliance on faith would require one to be agnostic. Atheists and theists just argue over if the glass is half full or half empty. An agnostic knows the glass contains 50% water and doesn't try to extrapolate that into some greater meaning. As for liberal vs. Con, well Obama is touted as very smart and we've seen what good that was. He can't get anything done despite having had veto proof majorities. Is he really all that smart? If you consider trying to find a creative solution to replace old proven solutions to be a smart way to handle yourself. But that's not smart for the big leagues. Those experiments should be tried at the state and local level first. Prove them first and then subject everyone else to them. Is monogamy smart? Well maybe. But people who can get laid a lot tend not to be book worms. Why? They have better things to do. So if I were to guess, this psychologist is a liberal, doesn't believe in god, and never gets laid. So he was of course shocked that his study backs up his claim that he is the smartest person in the world with despite his 103 IQ.

Researchers classified students by their IQ:
Students with IQs above 100=liberal.
Students with IQs below 100=conservative.

"Kanazawa says that humans are evolutionarily programmed to be conservative - to care mostly about family and friends"

Uhhh, studies have shown that conservatives give more in charity.

This study means little - the highest IQ students will be those that pay attention in school. And they are largely being taught history and economics by left-liberals, so they'll just absorb that.

Besides, liberal vs. conservative is meaningless - they are basically the same. Libertarian vs. Authoritarian is the only meaningful axis.

In adolescence, it's perfectly natural for the smarter kids to be the first to see beyond themselves, and become aware of the many imperfections and injustices of the world around them. Being immature and uneducated, socialism, i.e. "it's so obvious what's wrong and it's so easy to fix it" (for an example, refer to yesterday's health care summit, or whatever it was), is the first comprehensible solution to present itself.

However, this soon passes. Other forms of disillusionment set in: the imperfections of fellow human beings, the extreme difficulty in doing anything, and, eventually, the awareness that there are genuinely nasty, mean, self-interested people in the world, and they are as likely to affect an appearance of kindness and caring as they are to wear a black top hats and twirl their moustaches.

At this point, it is best to defer to Mark Twain: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

You'd think that somebody with a genius level IQ would be able to follow the directions on the side of a can of car wax, but no.

You'd think that somebody with a genius level IQ would be able to see that the oil he's putting into the engine is flowing out from under the valve cover gasket as quickly as he's pouring it in, but no.

The higher people's IQ, it seems the less smart they are.

That's because the major in economics, finance, philosophy. They left the things you mentioned for the losers who took shop.

I care about family... dummy.
I care about my neighbors... dummy.
I have faith in my God and my Lord... dummy.
I don't have all the answers to all the questions never asked... dummy.

What is an I.Q. test, really?
Who is improved by the results of said test?
If a tree falls in the forest and now genius is around to explain it, did it really fall?

Faithfully and happily yours,
T. Moeller

Oh, just let the liberals think well of themselves.

The most important thing to them in the entire world is the preservation of their feelings of moral and intellectual superiority.

Let 'em believe it. It's all they have.

Regardless of whether this study has merit or not (and I do not believe it does), I believe the author of this article has committed an egregious error. Although I dislike breaking out the latin, this seems to be a case that warrants it. In my opinion the argument that "liberals, atheists, and monogamous have higher IQ's" is non sequitur.

Allow me to explain my position. First this study is not a representative sample of all liberals and all conservatives. It is a sample of children between grades seven through twelve. The study can not support the position that "liberals" as a group would score higher on IQ tests, much less be more "intelligent". A study as narrow as this is of marginal utility simply because it will tell the reader nothing more than, on average, there is statistical correlation between students (7-12) who score marginally higher on an IQ test and students (7-12) that self-identify as "very liberal" while their "very conservative" counterparts score marginally lower. This can be said of any other set of groups touted in this article's headline.

Another reason this study is non-representative is that it is quite common, almost expected, for children to change their political alignment as they grow older. This phenomenon also trends conservative. Although it has been said before, it bears repeating that children often live in a very controlled and, quite frankly, unrealistic world. Insulation and indoctrination, no matter the intent, by interested parties can result in warped perceptions until an individual has an opportunity to grow and experience situations first-hand. Likewise I see self-identification as a dubious technique when used with adults, much less children who may have a hazy or tinted view of what they are identifying with.

In conclusion I would like to reiterate that I find the assertion given by the title of this article to be unsupported by the study they quote. The study is not inclusive enough to be used to make the claims made in this article's headline. There are also numerous other flaws as briefly covered in this and other posts. It is my opinion that this article and likely the study itself are at best designed to appeal the vanities of those who hold a similar ideological view and an attempt to disparage those with competing opinions. Unfortunately for the purveyors of this "information", it does little more than a expose the bias of an author as it relates to a study of questionable value and motive.

John Stuart Mill said the following in 1866.
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

Still you proclaim from on high "that it is so" I see without bothering with any justification. You also ignore the fact that this article explicitly proclaims "Study Shows Liberals, Atheists, And Monogamous Have Higher IQ's ". The study does nothing of the sort. Either the author was being purposefully vague to allow intepretation that "liberals, et al have higher IQs" or does not understand the data. Furthermore the study is dubious in its value due to the age of the sample population and worthless as an indicator of any sort of trend at all in the general populace.

First we should address the study I assume you are speaking of that establishes that liberals hold higher degrees is "beyond dispute". That would be Berkley's SDA, no? Indeed that assertion is true BUT not the entire story. It also shows that FAR more people who hold "liberal" viewpoints have little education so to speak of at all than conservatives. Although not a perfect comparison as surely some democrats consider themselves conservative and some republicans likely have liberal tendancies, notice how 1/4 of strong and not strong dems have little high school education and the trend continues from there. To borrow a line, "Democrats pull from the extremes and conservatives from the middle." I wonder what someone unfriendly to your position might have to say about that? Also that study is a 28 year cumulative study. You can adjust the study window to get radically different results, including a reversal of party affiliation for the nation's highest educated citizens.

Another point is that education is not the same as intelligence and at best only serves as a coarse proxy. Neither are all degrees made equal nor universities. I wonder what the political affiliation of "hard" science degree holders is as we know that Social Sciences are absolutely flooded by the left. I wonder if it is disinterest in the "easy/soft" sciences that drives conservatives away are discrimination from a near monoloithic academia...so much for free-thinking, eh?

Finally one of the dirty little secrets about many of these studies (not particularly the SDA though...that is party affiliation) is that they are rather arbitray in who they lump in as "conservative" and "liberal". In fact analysis of the data consistently suggests the people who are "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" are the most educated/intelligent. Usually the determinant factor of a subjects affiliation is determined by their social views, indeed I believe I might qualify as "socially liberal" but I would self-identify as very conservative. Ponder what that may mean for data interpretation for a moment. In closing it is not the "progressive" but the "libertarian" that is statistically the most educated (and socially tolerant depending on who is doing the study but I digress).

if you are a libertarian Buddhist with liberal values presented in a conservative manner

Perhaps the debate would work better if instead of "uh" and vague attacks someone attempted a rebuttal.

Using slanted studies to impune the intelligence of people who hold a different opinion is a laughably weak argument. So far the best anyone attempting to support the premise that "liberals are smarter" has come up with is "studies shows" without quoting any actual study. Furthermore it has been shown that the SDA, a study often selectively quoted by the "liberals are smarter" crowd, suggests very unflattering things about the intellect of the Democrat party, the political party affiliated with "Progressivism" and "Liberalism".

I am not surprised that ad hominem has been the bread and butter of the "counter-argument" yet now calling a "spade-a-spade" and using the classic "everybody knows that" argument has ellicited the response seen. Without fail anecdotes and "because" is seen as a legitimate debate technique from the leftist position and then howled about when thrown back in their faces.

Again let me remind the reader that this particularly study is worthless as a measure of intelligence among "conservatives and liberals" for the myriad of reasons out-lined in previous posts. It suggests nothing of the affiliations or intelligence of conservatives and liberals in the general populace despite the assertions of this article. The nebulous "studies" often selectively cited that suggest "superior intellect" on the left are as often as not manipulated, automatically lumping the "socially liberal but fiscally conservative" into the liberal category regardless of any other factor. The timelines on studies such as the SDA can also be manipulated to reflect favorably on either party. Lastly even the SDA reflects poorly on the Democratic party's education level as a whole, although there are more individuals holding higher degrees, there are also many more individuals with little to no education than their Republican counter-parts.

I am curious if any will attempt at an actual counter-argument wll be made at this point or if the same weak "I'm right because I'm right" nonsense will countinue. If your best response is "Uhh", then I suggest you save yourself the embarassment and just not post.

That's it? That is the best you can come up with? Is actually attempting to support your position too much trouble?

It is ironic that in your attempt to be insulting to those that challenge the premise of this article that you expose your own short-comings and demonstrate not only a complete lack of debate skills but a total refusal to acknowledge that a competing point of view exists. Ignoring the evidence that challenges your position is not going to win you any points outside of the echo chamber of the like-minded but it is a excellent method of calling your own IQ into question.

If people who hold the position you do continue to stick their heads in the sand and refuse to even address any type of counter-point then that is fine by me. Such practices not only tarnish your own reputation but damage the image of whatever point you are attempting to make. Please, by all means, continue with the self-congratulation on how "smart your side is" and make it that much easier for the rest of us to distiguish who the real fools are.

P.S.

As an afterthought I would also like to point out that "intelligence" does not necessarily correlate with "being right" or "being good". It holds even truer for "education". Being an expert in one field does not suddenly make a person more qualified to answer questions in another. The conflation that having a high level of education suddenly makes a person adept at chooosing the best political ideology is ludicrous. This is even more apparent where the level of voter apathy and political ignorance is at a level such as that found in the United States of America today.

I know some very intelligent people who believe in God.

I have known some poor low educated atheists before too.