Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

[serum114]

By Satoshi Kanazawa

Harriet Hayes: I don’t even know what the sides are in the culture wars.

Matt Albie: Well, your side hates my side because you think we think you are stupid, and my side hates your side because we think you are stupid.

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Nevada Day, Part I

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u15/Political%20ideology.jpg
Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.

The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives. Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

[GetAClue]

I found this line very telling:

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.

The difference between liberals and conservatives is not defined by this. The SOURCE of the resources that each are willing to contribute is the main difference. Liberals have no problem contributing the resources of others while conservatives will contribute their own resources.

[Citizen]

India has more honors kids than Americans have kids. Or how about these liberal college professors or wealthy "intellectual elitists", if their political ideals fail what kind of repercussions do they face for their teachings? None, what difference does it make to them? There is no correlation.

[Citizen]

Oh and go to the author's wikipedia page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa

P.Z. Myers, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota, has called Kanazawa "the great idiot of social science" for interpreting nation's mean IQ scores as a measure of their dedication to healthcare[18]

lol

Another piece of garbage in that massive liberal landfill.

[Trinnity]

I found this line very telling:



The difference between liberals and conservatives is not defined by this. The SOURCE of the resources that each are willing to contribute is the main difference. Liberals have no problem contributing the resources of others while conservatives will contribute their own resources.

That's it.

[Bill Cosby]

India has more honors kids than Americans have kids. Or how about these liberal college professors or wealthy "intellectual elitists", if their political ideals fail what kind of repercussions do they face for their teachings? None, what difference does it make to them? There is no correlation.

What kind of repercussions would you have??? Floggings???

Afterall we know that will not stop them so why try!!!!! :lmao2:

[Bill Cosby]

By Satoshi Kanazawa

Harriet Hayes: I don’t even know what the sides are in the culture wars.

Matt Albie: Well, your side hates my side because you think we think you are stupid, and my side hates your side because we think you are stupid.

Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, Nevada Day, Part I

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction. In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children. For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u15/Political%20ideology.jpg
Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either sex or race. So it appears that, as the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.

The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs. The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from the Hypothesis; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them. In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit. They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives. Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

Interesting............

I use to be much more conservative but now I think most find me pretty liberal so I must of gotten smarter??? :lmao2: :lmao2:

I have heard also that how one was raised is a big factor........ Stern parents = sterness on the next generation..

http://www.phillyburbs.com/uploads/RTEmagicC_your_health_your_problem_01.jpg.jpg
6ik4f1dRbP8

[CommonCents]

Hold on to your hats people, because what I'm about to say is going to shock EVERYONE on this board.

I think that liberals do have a higher over all IQ than conservatives do. You heard me right, I believe that the average IQ of devoted liberals is higher than the average IQ of devoted conservatives. Now let me explain why I believe that to be true, and why I see it as a flaw, rather than a benefit.

First, let me point out that the graph used in that article is very deceiving.

This is how IQ scores are classified:

IQ Ratings of Over 140 - Genius or near genius

IQ Ratings of 120 to 140 Highly intelligent

IQ Ratings of 110 to 119 Very intelligent

IQ Rating of 90 to 109 Normal or average intelligence

IQ Ratings of 80 to 89 Dullness

IQ Rating of 70-79 Borderline deficiency

IQ Ratings Under 70 Definite feeble-mindedness

Every single category in that graph falls into the range of "Normal or average intelligence", so the difference between all of them is minor. What I believe tips the scale for liberals are the people in the 140 IQ range and higher. I believe that a large percentage of those people are likely to be liberals. I'll explain.

What makes us what we are as human beings, is a combination of two things. For lack of better terminology, I classify those two things as "Animal" and "machine".

The "Animal" part of us comprises the things that we possess, that weren't taught to us. Our emotions such as, fear, desire, greed, sex and love come from here, along with our belief in things unseen, such as religion. It's the basic feelings and survival instincts we are born with, that we had the moment we were born.

The other part of what makes us is the "Machine". That's our highly advanced brain and our ability to use logic and reason to advance technology, educate, and to unravel even the most complex of problems. It deals with the things it can see, hear and touch.

Being afraid of the dark when you were younger is a great example of the two. The animal side of us generates a fear of the unknown when the lights are turned off at night, while the machine side of us has determined logically that there is nothing more to fear in the dark, than there was with the lights on, so over time we learn to embrace the machine logic and overcome our instinctual animal fear. Another example is how as children, we judge people based on their appearance. If they seem friendly, we do not see them as a threat and will interact with them. We have to be taught by our parents that we shouldn't interact with strangers, because they could bring us harm.

The average person embraces both these aspects of who we are and strikes a harmonious balance between the two, with Some relying more heavily on one side or the other. Accepting both sides is essential, which leads me to the reason I believe that most people with very high IQ's tend to be liberal.

The lives of people with very high IQ's tend to revolve around their intellect, and often ignore basic human instincts and behavior. That's why most geniuses (aka the liberal elite) are not profoundly religious, because religion defies a logical explanation, therefore they dismiss it. When the highly intelligent are faced with a problem, they believe that no matter what that problem might be, there's an intellectual, logic based solution, so that's the approach they take.

A good example of this was the solution for a perfect society that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote about in the "Communist Manifesto". It made perfect, logical sense, appeared flawless on paper, and was embraced by many of the scholars and intellectual elites of the time. The only problem was that it failed to take into account human nature, ignored the past failures that human nature caused when similar plans were tried, and promoted a belief that human behavior could somehow be changed through education, which as history has proven, simply can't be done. Despite the prevailing, always present, and undeniably effective role that human nature (greed, jealousy, resentment, competitiveness, etc) plays on human society, the intellectual elite (high IQ) simply aren't capable of accepting that there's no logical solution to overcome this, thus their solutions are destine for failure.

That also explains why a belief in socialism still exists today, even though every time it's been tried, it's either ended is quiet failure, or has ended with the deaths of thousands and even millions of people, when a leader refused to accept it's failure and impose it on it's citizens by force.

That flawed intellectual approach to solving the problems of society, is the exclusive political trademark of the liberal/progressive/socialist/Marxist ideological movement, and why I agree that the overall average IQ of liberals, has to be higher than that of conservatives.

Ok... Time for you all to take your shots. I'm ready.

[Trinnity]

Mine is 165. I must be a miracle:lmao2:

[CommonCents]

Mine is 165. I must be a miracle:lmao2:

Mine is 139... and I did say "most" of the high IQ intellectuals.

Other than that, any thoughts on my hypothesis?

[Bill Cosby]

Hold on to your hats people, because what I'm about to say is going to shock EVERYONE on this board.

I think that liberals do have a higher over all IQ than conservatives do. You heard me right, I believe that the average IQ of devoted liberals is higher than the average IQ of devoted conservatives. Now let me explain why I believe that to be true, and why I see it as a flaw, rather than a benefit.

First, let me point out that the graph used in that article is very deceiving.

This is how IQ scores are classified:

IQ Ratings of Over 140 - Genius or near genius

IQ Ratings of 120 to 140 Highly intelligent

IQ Ratings of 110 to 119 Very intelligent

IQ Rating of 90 to 109 Normal or average intelligence

IQ Ratings of 80 to 89 Dullness

IQ Rating of 70-79 Borderline deficiency

IQ Ratings Under 70 Definite feeble-mindedness

Every single category in that graph falls into the range of "Normal or average intelligence", so the difference between all of them is minor. What I believe tips the scale for liberals are the people in the 140 IQ range and higher. I believe that a large percentage of those people are likely to be liberals. I'll explain.

What makes us what we are as human beings, is a combination of two things. For lack of better terminology, I classify those two things as "Animal" and "machine".

The "Animal" part of us comprises the things that we possess, that weren't taught to us. Our emotions such as, fear, desire, greed, sex and love come from here, along with our belief in things unseen, such as religion. It's the basic feelings and survival instincts we are born with, that we had the moment we were born.

The other part of what makes us is the "Machine". That's our highly advanced brain and our ability to use logic and reason to advance technology, educate, and to unravel even the most complex of problems. It deals with the things it can see, hear and touch.

Being afraid of the dark when you were younger is a great example of the two. The animal side of us generates a fear of the unknown when the lights are turned off at night, while the machine side of us has determined logically that there is nothing more to fear in the dark, than there was with the lights on, so over time we learn to embrace the machine logic and overcome our instinctual animal fear. Another example is how as children, we judge people based on their appearance. If they seem friendly, we do not see them as a threat and will interact with them. We have to be taught by our parents that we shouldn't interact with strangers, because they could bring us harm.

The average person embraces both these aspects of who we are and strikes a harmonious balance between the two, with Some relying more heavily on one side or the other. Accepting both sides is essential, which leads me to the reason I believe that most people with very high IQ's tend to be liberal.

The lives of people with very high IQ's tend to revolve around their intellect, and often ignore basic human instincts and behavior. That's why most geniuses (aka the liberal elite) are not profoundly religious, because religion defies a logical explanation, therefore they dismiss it. When the highly intelligent are faced with a problem, they believe that no matter what that problem might be, there's an intellectual, logic based solution, so that's the approach they take.

A good example of this was the solution for a perfect society that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote about in the "Communist Manifesto". It made perfect, logical sense, appeared flawless on paper, and was embraced by many of the scholars and intellectual elites of the time. The only problem was that it failed to take into account human nature, ignored the past failures that human nature caused when similar plans were tried, and promoted a belief that human behavior could somehow be changed through education, which as history has proven, simply can't be done. Despite the prevailing, always present, and undeniably effective role that human nature (greed, jealousy, resentment, competitiveness, etc) plays on human society, the intellectual elite (high IQ) simply aren't capable of accepting that there's no logical solution to overcome this, thus their solutions are destine for failure.

That also explains why a belief in socialism still exists today, even though every time it's been tried, it's either ended is quiet failure, or has ended with the deaths of thousands and even millions of people, when a leader refused to accept it's failure and impose it on it's citizens by force.

That flawed intellectual approach to solving the problems of society, is the exclusive political trademark of the liberal/progressive/socialist/Marxist ideological movement, and why I agree that the overall average IQ of liberals, has to be higher than that of conservatives.

Ok... Time for you all to take your shots. I'm ready.

Some pretty interesting points............

I agree that failing to add that "human nature" thing in there can be a bit of a problem........lol

Ppl are not ants but they can often times be lead like sheep, unfortunately.....

I would also say that while intelligence is certainly important it is hardly the highest priority of some "plan/idea" or a leader.........

[CommonCents]

Some pretty interesting points............

I agree that failing to add that "human nature" thing in there can be a bit of a problem........lol

Yup, as history has demonstrated.

Ppl are not ants but they can often times be lead like sheep, unfortunately.....

That's true of both sides equally. When I hear someone say that when it comes to voting, a person needs to make an informed and "intelligent" decision, it reminds me that there's more to it than that. I think it's very important that people look at who a candidate is, as much as listening to what they have to say. A candidates history needs to be examined. Their upbringing, educational performance, past jobs, past indiscretions, writings, achievements and overall character need to be given serious consideration, because those are the things that really tell you who a person is.

In my opinion, if the main stream media would have more throughly examined those aspects of Barack Obama, he would have never been elected president by the American public. But that's a story for another day.



I would also say that while intelligence is certainly important it is hardly the highest priority of some "plan/idea" or a leader.........

Bill, do you know why myself and most conservatives are opposed to socialism and social programs in general? The left would like you to believe that it's because we have no human compassion, or we're greedy and don't want to give up our money, or we don't care if people can't get health care and die, etc, etc... The left thinks I, like most conservatives, disagree with the socialist dreams and ideals of Karl Marx, and view them, as well as the man himself, as pure "evil".

The truth is, his ideas and the motivation behind those ideas was never the problem. In fact, I see his ideas as noble, if not beautiful, and respect much of what he was trying to accomplish. It was results that were achieved when his socialist ideas were implemented, that's provoked such a violent dislike for the man and his ideas on how society should be governed. Socialism is an idea that not only can't work because of human nature, it's an idea that when implemented, destroys a society both economically, as well as spiritually.

[doctordog]

Statistically, Conservatives have always given more to charities than liberals. Liberals only want to make everyone give through taxes but they will not give it freely.