High IQ And World View

[Matt Collins]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

this reminds me of Idiocracy. is Mike Judge a prophet?

 

[Theocrat]

Laughable Study

"Atheism" and liberalism makes one have a higher IQ? Wow. Now I've heard it all. Oh, wait a minute. We live in a time where people like AL Gore and Barack Obama can be awarded Nobel Peace Prizes, and all the while be wrong about their policies and beliefs. Yeah, IQ doesn't mean anything.

 

[A. Havnes]

So how the heck does that explain religious conservatives like Ron Paul? Sorry, but I see this as less fact reporting and more of promoting a mindset, namely, you have to be sexually exclusive (if you're a man), an atheist and a liberal, otherwise people will think you're stupid.

 

[TinCanToNA]

Oh, so that's what Bill Maher means when we're all idiots for not understanding "Health Care Reform" then?

While Dr. Paul is not an intellectual powerhouse by himself and is neither liberal nor atheist, he is two things that so many others are not: honest and correct!

 

[JAlli41]

"Atheism" and liberalism makes one have a higher IQ? Wow. Now I've heard it all. Oh, wait a minute. We live in a time where people like AL Gore and Barack Obama can be awarded Nobel Peace Prizes, and all the while be wrong about their policies and beliefs. Yeah, IQ doesn't mean anything.

The article doesn't claim that one can become smarter by suddenly becoming an atheist. The point of the article is that people with higher IQ's tend to not be so bogged down with traditional norms and some with higher IQ's even prefer to be different from the bell-curve on these issues. Also, the article differentiates liberalism in the broader sense as Europeans would think of the word (we are all liberals and libertarianism is strong form of liberalism) from the American view of liberalism meaning being pro-choice, anti-gun ect... (I also think the article misuses the word liberalism and cosmopolitan would likely be a better choice for the point they are trying to make). I tend to think there are some problems with this survey being how large the population of religious people in America are vs. the about 10% (if that?) of atheists, and the way IQ is formulated anyway. Plus there are all sorts of different types of intelligence. As an atheist myself I would still have to give credit to a champion bible-scholar, even if I did think he was speaking nonsense.

 

[TinCanToNA]

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.

Well hell, under that definition, I think virtually everyone on the planet is a liberal... The only people who don't have concern for genetically nonrelated people and do not support private resources that help those people are assholes and tyrants.

 

[Fox McCloud]

While Dr. Paul is not an intellectual powerhouse by himself

Don't confuse a lack of majestic oratory skills as being non-intellectual; Jefferson was a terrible speaker, and yet I don't think many here would even begin to suggest that he was not an intellectual.

Another thing with Ron is that he's incredibly humble, and "intellectual powerhouses" who are humble generally aren't widely known for being incredibly intelligent since they aren't flaunting it.

 

[TinCanToNA]

Don't confuse a lack of majestic oratory skills as being non-intellectual; Jefferson was a terrible speaker, and yet I don't think many here would even begin to suggest that he was not an intellectual.

Another thing with Ron is that he's incredibly humble, and "intellectual powerhouses" who are humble generally aren't widely known for being incredibly intelligent since they aren't flaunting it.

I agree generally. I certainly didn't mean any offense.

 

[JAlli41]

Well hell, under that definition, I think virtually everyone on the planet is a liberal... The only people who don't have concern for genetically nonrelated people and do not support private resources that help those people are assholes and tyrants.

Many people do not support liberal policies for many reasons. The vast majority of established governments in history have been illiberal and mostly well supported because what they exchange in freedom they receive in stability. The US is actually an anomoly in human history for being for stable and so free for such a long time. Also, it should be noted that a lot of people are utilitarians in liberal clothing. Most of our current political leaders are hardcore utilitarians. "just give a few freedoms for the common good." "taxes go to the common good." These aren't exactly overtly liberal views.

 

[Vessol]

Well hell, under that definition, I think virtually everyone on the planet is a liberal... The only people who don't have concern for genetically nonrelated people and do not support private resources that help those people are assholes and tyrants.

This. They mean socially liberal really, not politically.

 

[dgr]

You keep forgeting that only the "enlightened" are intelligent enough to understand

 

[TheEvilDetector]

"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."

 

[TinCanToNA]

Many people do not support liberal policies for many reasons. The vast majority of established governments in history have been illiberal and mostly well supported because what they exchange in freedom they receive in stability. The US is actually an anomoly in human history for being for stable and so free for such a long time. Also, it should be noted that a lot of people are utilitarians in liberal clothing. Most of our current political leaders are hardcore utilitarians. "just give a few freedoms for the common good." "taxes go to the common good." These aren't exactly overtly liberal views.

I was referring exclusively to the overly-broad definition used by the website. When you say, "liberal policies" that is in contrast to the definition used by the website, which explicitly said that support for private resources to help nonrelations was considered a liberal mindset.

Again, it's just a ridiculous definition they are using.

 

[CountryboyRonPaul]

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.

What's more puzzling is that if the "study" assumed this is the definition for liberal, then their conservative group was likely sought out for the opposite quality.

 

[Theocrat]

I Saw Something Different

The article doesn't claim that one can become smarter by suddenly becoming an atheist. The point of the article is that people with higher IQ's tend to not be so bogged down with traditional norms and some with higher IQ's even prefer to be different from the bell-curve on these issues. Also, the article differentiates liberalism in the broader sense as Europeans would think of the word (we are all liberals and libertarianism is strong form of liberalism) from the American view of liberalism meaning being pro-choice, anti-gun ect... (I also think the article misuses the word liberalism and cosmopolitan would likely be a better choice for the point they are trying to make). I tend to think there are some problems with this survey being how large the population of religious people in America are vs. the about 10% (if that?) of atheists, and the way IQ is formulated anyway. Plus there are all sorts of different types of intelligence. As an atheist myself I would still have to give credit to a champion bible-scholar, even if I did think he was speaking nonsense.

I have to go with A. Havnes' earlier post by saying the article seems to be implying that "atheists," liberals, and sexually exclusive males are more intelligent than most, if IQ is the standard. The article even states,

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. [Emphasis mine]

The article goes on to say,

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...

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. [Emphasis mine]

I know the article is not saying that one has to be an "atheist," liberal, or sexually exclusive male to be intelligent. However, its analysis from the "experts" who did the study certainly suggests that those particular mindsets/behaviors somehow show a strong connection to being the most intelligent people in a society, on an evolutionary scale. To me, that's hogwash.

 

[V4Vendetta]

I saw that today on Digg. I was not at all surprised to see that. Thats the same trick all governments and higher social classes like to use throughout history.

"See we know whats right and better for everyone, because you believe in God, and are a Conservative-Libertarian, that goes to show that your IQ is lower hence you can't possibly be right."

"It's ok, we're not telling you that you can't worship your God, we're just telling you not to do it in public, oh and that goes for the Bible too, we don't want our young with their impressionable minds seeing that."

 

[FunkBuddha]

Scary. Does this remind anyone else of Nazi propaganda?

 

[Epic]

correlation != causation

plus, libertarian vs. authoritarian is the real axis

 

[MelissaWV]

I have a fairly high IQ... so I skipped the article entirely.