« | »

Liberalism, Atheism, Linked To High IQ

We almost missed this scientific study from those famous brainiacs at CNN:

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN

February 26, 2010

(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.

That’s a relief.

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.

Some things never change. Certainly, liberalism and atheism don’t seem to be of much benefit today, either.

On the other hand, Muslims do make a good case for monogamy.

"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.

What exactly is unconventional about liberalism  and monogamy — or atheism? These are the core beliefs of the establishment. They are promulgated ceaselessly by the schools, the media, and the popular culture.

This minor detail would seem to upend the entire argument of this study.

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…

So this is based on (nearly ten year old) interviews of 18 to 28 year olds? Of course such people are going to identify themselves with what the establishment says is hip and smart.

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.

Got that? Religion = paranoia.

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.

Like Newton.

"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.

That is, since liberalism is unnatural and bad for the species it must therefore be proof of a higher intelligence.

Isn’t evolutionary psychology fun?

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."

And we believe them.

Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said

What laughable nonsense. It’s hard to believe that even CNN would take it seriously.

However, this ‘study’ does promotes liberalism. So it doesn’t really matter to CNN or the rest of our media how absurd it is.

By the way, as the article notes, this study is going to be published by the Social Psychology Quarterly.

The Social Psychology Quarterly is put out by the American Sociological Association, which describes its mission thusly:

Mission: the American Sociological Association (ASA) is a non-profit membership association dedicated to advancing sociology as a scientific discipline and profession serving the public good.

Certainly nobody can doubt that sociologists, who just happen to be liberal atheists, are famous for their high intellect.

Has anybody ever even heard of a dumb sociologist?

By the way, this selfsame evolutionary psychologist, Satoshi Kanazawa, published a study in 2006 which explained why beautiful women sometimes marry unattractive men.

This article was posted by Steve on Sunday, February 28th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

28 Responses to “Liberalism, Atheism, Linked To High IQ”

  1. TwilightZoned says:

    “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.”

    Well, there’s a real difference to write home about. Especially, since both numbers are well within the very average range of IQ. (very sarcastic)

    Something to ponder. Survivors have been found to have two things in common. They have a strong belief in faith and family. I’d much rather be a survivor than a useful idiot er, high IQ’d lib.

    More than likely this study is more of the same crap the global warming
    alarmists are trying push off as scientific. Just more evidence the
    leftists are supercilious twits. Thanks Tater…I love that phrase!

    Besides we all know geniuses who don’t have enough common sense to come in out of the rain. And if libtards are so damned smart why is it their progressive ideas always end up as huge failures? (rhetorical, of course)

  2. beautyofreason says:

    “It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically non-related people and support for private resources that help those people.”

    By private, does the study mean charity – or government redistribution? Big difference. Also, I fail to see how these political views are related to intelligence. Does the study propose that most redistributive ideologies – such as communism – have more smart people than the most individualistic ones – such as libertarianism? And correlation is not causation, but you won’t hear it from those boobs.

    More likely (in my own speculation) people who attend higher education may be slightly smarter than average. Liberalism and this sort of anti-Western globalism are the dominant views in higher education, which could explain the difference. A few years ago in college, I noticed that there were very leftist instructors (one question in a course: Did Rice sleep with Bush?) and then there were instructors who appeared unbiased. There were no openly conservative teachers.

    Liberals seem to have big ideas with little grounding. They are more idealistic than practical, while conservatives are more realistic when dealing with other peoples and cultures – such as the nuclear ambitions of Iran (fool me once…). Liberals are also the most relativistic when it comes to the United States – these foolish “citizens of the world” are the first ones to respond that other countries have the right to nuclear weapons if the United States has them. They are the first to demand gay marriage but oppose the existence of Israel, perhaps the only country in the region that does not execute gays. To the liberal mind America is no special city on a hill, just one multicultural country that must bend over backwards to apologize for the errors of colonialism. Non-white peoples and cultures must subscribe to a victim mentality in niche groups.

  3. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Seems that an article that went out of its way to say, “Let’s not label people” did a darn good job of doing just that.

  4. jobeth says:

    “On the other hand, Muslims do make a good case for monogamy.”

    ….but a better case for spaying and neutering…uhh, I mean sterilization.

  5. joeblough says:

    What the idiot academics are incapable of understanding is that the quality of your basic ideas has more effect on your mental competence that the raw brute physical qualities of your brain.

    High IQ + bad ideas = dummy

    So far as friends or even just barroom conversation are concerned, I’ll take an uneducated slow-boat who knows how to think straight over a mental Mercedes with a head crammed full of crap any day.

    Those high IQ folks spent more time and energy on school, where their minds were tortured into accepting idiocies as truth.


  6. proreason says:

    My scientific study shows exactly the opposite.

    Liberals are rote followers. Self-interested hypocrits. Unable to learn. Uninterested in things they don’t already know. Unable to follow an argument.

    I should know. I was one. But I was an example of a liberal idiot who was too busy to pay attention. Once my attention was captured, it didn’t take long to change, since I had the capability.

    Obamy is a classic case of a liberal who seems unable to change. He repeats what he has been told, can’t think for himself. It’s apparent in everything he does. But he’s a good actor. He mimics well.

    That may explain why most actors are libwits.

    • jobeth says:

      Not only that, but when they can’t gin up a good argument for their positions….they just get angry, start and argument, yell a bit and then walk away growling. I just get a Cheshire cat grin on my face. :-D

      Don’t be too hard on your self for being a lib at one time. Truth be known many of us (as in me) were as well, in our younger years.

      “If you aren’t liberal when you ‘re 20, you had no heart. And if you aren’t a conservative when you’re 40, you have no brain”…Winston Churchill

      Also this “study” is bunk.
      I am a conservative…and I also have a respectable IQ…AND I believe in God!

  7. Petronius says:

    No doubt many Liberals are intelligent. And no doubt (as joeblough explains) there are many intelligent people who also hold stupid beliefs, such as Liberalism.

    Liberalism is an ideology. It is an ideology like Marxism and Utopianism, to both of which Liberalism is closely related, and with which it shares most of its doctrine.

    As an ideology, it is removed from reality. Ideological thinking means that one’s ideas, answers, attitudes, beliefs, etc. are derived from the ideology, and not from facts, experience, experiments, or observations.

    A person –– no matter how high his IQ –– who takes refuge in an ideology, whose mind has been captured by an ideology, has surrendered his intelligence, his reason, and his judgment. To order one’s life on the basis of an ideology means turning your back on the real world. Acceptance of ideological doctrine means not wanting to know what is true.

    Liberalism may have an internal logical structure of its own, but it is like the logical structure of a delusion or a paranoiac obsession, which Liberalism also resembles. It is a fantasy, and the chief elements of Liberal doctrine are indeed fantastic ––

    belief in the perfectibility of human nature,
    the belief that human beings are plastic and fungible and capable of being remolded,
    the belief in the need to eradicate social hierarchies and social distinctions (except of course for the Liberal elite themselves, who will become the new masters of the universe),
    the belief in the all-powerful state as the instrument for good and progress in the world,
    the desire to eradicate religion, race, custom, and tradition from the planet,
    the preference for multiculturalism, foreigners, and strangers over one’s own country, kith and kin,
    the celebration of everything that is poor, miserable, downtrodden, sick, ill-made, bad mannered, weak, and disgusting over everything that is healthy, successful, beautiful, and strong,
    the preference for the natural physical environment over the well-being of human beings.

    Merely to summarize the elements of Liberal doctrine is sufficient to demonstrate how fantastic and unreal it all is.

    And yet intelligent people cling to it as to a religion.

    • proreason says:

      Your list, Petro, is a generous one indeed.

      There are probably a tiny few liberals with genuinely good intentions. Phil Donohue may be an example.

      But by far the vast majority of liberals are cynical opportunists, although some are unable to face the truth about themselves. They see an opportunity to feather their own nests at the expense of others. The ideology you describe is a handy excuse for doing that.

      Almost all of the netroots fall into the category of cynical opportunists, but there are plenty of them at the exalted level as well. Gore is certainly one who is cynically enriching himself at other’s expense. Obamy also has a good bit of that in himself, although he is also an idealogue. Clearly, these people have no problem living with the hypocracy of believing in an ideology that just happens to spell out very clearly that they are destined to be the commissars and aristocrats of the final solution to humanity’s problems.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Wow, Petronius. You have put into words the very core of what frustrates me about liberals. I hit upon some of those things from time to time but you pretty much got it distilled. Brilliant. I might add that their clinging to an ideology can be the result of something very simple, or very complex. But the reasons matter not as they shut out all reason, logic and evidence.

  8. Bill Carver says:

    I find the results of this study dubious when considering that the only thing liberals can say to the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh in response to their arguments that they have an Adam’s apple, or they’re a “Big Fat Liar”

    Very intellectual positions indeed.

  9. U NO HOO says:

    Get Mensa on the phone…

  10. JohnMG says:

    …..”Has anybody ever even heard of a dumb sociologist?…..”

    Is the Pope Catholic? C’mon. The guy that wrote this study signed his name to it. I rest my case!!

    But the real laugh in this one is the bit about sexual exclusivity in men. This is a puzzle??!!

    The next time some liberal nut-case suggests that homosexual behavior is just as normal as heterosexual behavior, ask them to define “normal”. Then tell them if queer behavior was normal, (meaning practiced by the vast majority) the human race would have ceased to exist eons ago.

    And maybe just a little off-topic, (but I think a case could be made that it isn’t) the reason scientists haven’t found a cure for AIDS is because all those high IQ’d liberals haven’t been able to persuade two white rats to screw each other in the a$$. Even rats are smarter than that.

    Is this guy, Satoshi Kanazawa, on Al Gore’s payroll?

    • jobeth says:

      “…..”Has anybody ever even heard of a dumb sociologist?…..”

      “…… The guy that wrote this study signed his name to it. I rest my case!”

      Perfectly deduced! lol

  11. Knuckle Dragger says:

    You’ve really got to hand it to these people. They never stop hammering us, even when we are completely out of power. When we’re in power, we spend all of our time and effort just trying to keep the GOP from veering off course. Yet liberals manage to amass seemingly unlimited resources to “prove” that we are stupid, angry, impotent, racist, or just plain scared – just in case we ever try to bounce back. And to top it off, much of this crap is funded by either corporate profits or our tax dollars. We could learn a lot from them!

  12. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Using an analogy from aviation, I’ve modified it for the purpose of government.

    Each elected representative shall, upon taking their elected position, be assigned a dog. It will be the responsibility of the representative to feed the dog and the dog’s responsibility to make sure the representative doesn’t touch anything.

  13. wowdaveiscool says:

    All I can add is my own experience. I’m a MENSA member in good standing, a very conservative, libertarian, lasseiz-faire capitalist, a Catholic with a deep and effective relationship with God. I’m also smart enough to ignore the New York Times – though I visit Sweetness and Light every day.

  14. wowdaveiscool says:

    All I can add is my own experience. I’m a MENSA member in good standing, a very conservative, libertarian, lasseiz-faire capitalist, a Catholic with a deep and effective relationship with God. I’m also smart enough to ignore the New York Times – though I visit Sweetness and Light every day.

    • saccharin says:

      I guess MENSA doesn’t test spelling or blogging skills.

      Just kidding. :-)

      I misspell and double post all the time.

    • saccharin says:

      I guess MENSA doesn’t test spelling or blogging skills.

      Just kidding. :-)

      I misspell and double post all the time.

  15. conservativecanuck says:

    “they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere,” Kanazawa said.

    And this is said to be a bad thing? If you DON’T see the hand of God everyday, you are indeed a blind and empty man.

  16. Mithrandir says:

    Anyone who has had a liberal teacher / professor and-or liberal classmates KNOWS FULL WELL how thinking outside of liberalism is tolerated. Remember the reports of students being shamed and shouted down for supporting John McCain?

    Have you or your kids think of alternatives to solutions to liberal sacred cows, and see how quickly they shut down your views and observations.

    “I think we should stop wasting money on welfare, and make people accountable for their time and actions…”

    “Perhaps we can see a pattern here, an intelligent design for he way things operate in nature…”

    “I think Reagan was right when he said….”

    If there is anyone slamming the door on intelligent thoughts and reasoning, it’s liberalism with their speech codes, behavior codes, giving Ds and Fs for giving reports outside their political zones, and making opposing voices, ‘hate speech.’

    • jobeth says:

      “Anyone who has had a liberal teacher / professor and-or liberal classmates KNOWS FULL WELL how thinking outside of liberalism is tolerated”

      I remember while in a college English class, I turned in a paper in which we could choose the topic. I chose for the topic, my relationship with Christ.

      You know, the third rail of lib-world.

      She graded me on my ideas and went about telling me how I was wrong in my beliefs (she of course was an ‘enlightened” atheist) instead of only grading my writing skills.

      She gave me a “C”. Not for the writing skills…because she admitted she couldn’t find many mistakes, but for the subject content. Nice huh?

      I should have reported her but it was only one paper and who did I think would support me in a lib minded college anyway. I just took the grade. At least it didn’t hurt me.

      At the time I was just trying to get an education…nowadays I would fight her. It is people like me back in the day that allowed these nutters to get so bold.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »