48

Liberals have higher IQs: study

Evolutionary psychologist links intelligence to religious, political beliefs


 

Religious conservatives won’t like this: according to new research, the most intelligent among us are atheist liberals. In an article for Social Psychology Quarterly, Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics and Political Science, argues there’s an evolutionary explanation behind his findings. Kanazawa found that young adults who identify as “non-religious” and “very liberal” had an average IQ of 103—six points higher than their devout, “very conservative” peers. According to Kanazawa, this is due to the fact that humans, who began as hunter-gatherers, are biologically engineered to be conservative and care “only about the people we associate with,” such as family, friends and kin. Likewise, hunter gatherers sought to explain natural phenomena—which he describes as “evolutionarily novel”—through religion. More intelligent humans, he says, have been able to evaluate these elements and decide what they mean. Kanazawa also found a link between intelligence and monogamy—those who believed in being loyal to a single partner tended to be smarter than their polygamous-leaning peers.

Toronto Star


 
Filed under:

Liberals have higher IQs: study

  1. This is just one factor in human evolution; when measured before the Nurnberg trial, the IQs of Nazi leaders on stand were significantly higher than the average. Funny how IQ is never associated in massmedia with schooling or employee selection…

    • I suspect most evil bastards who had the ability to fool a nation (and almost take over the world) would score pretty high on an IQ test (it's not a test of character)

    • Godwin's Law, win!

    • As an atheist, I have always found it nonproductive to argue with believers. Do you think the relationship to IQ and being liberal is due to the fact that we tend to question things? I'm not completely convinced of the author's argument from the evolutionary standpoint, but I know I am not qualified to debate with an evolutionary psychologist. IQ is only IQ and doesn't mean the individual is a "nice guy" or a monster. That is irrelevant.

  2. "Ladies, gentlemen, and distinguished others, I give you Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics, the Fenimore Cooper of sociobiology, a man who has leveraged an inability to do data analysis or understand psychometrics into an official blog at Psychology Today, where he gets to advocate genocidal nuclear war as revenge for 9/11. He seems to mean it, rather than be fukayaming."

    http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/566.html

    "And then look at the source: Satoshi Kanazawa, the Fenimore Cooper of Sociobiology, the professional fantasist of Psychology Today. He's like the poster boy for the stupidity and groundlessness of freakishly fact-free evolutionary psychology."

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_p

    • But you're not ever supposed to question what scientists say. Because that automatically makes you stupid. Or so say the usual suspects any time an "expert" in one science or another is questioned by a layperson.

  3. So that's been my problem all along.

    • Lol!

  4. There was an apology for omission in several American newspapers this morning. What the study actually determined was that liberals have higher IQ's than banana slugs. It was close though, the mean separating the two only a few points.

    • Wow conservatives have lower IQ s than banana slugs .

  5. Evolutionary psychology is complete junk science. Their evolution explanation is so obviously based on absolutely nothing. There is no basis whatsoever for anything they said beyond the results of their study. They way that they parade these obvious fictions as facts is shameful.

    • Thanks for explaining that to the plebians, Joe. And what field of study did you earn your doctorate in?

  6. I never believe what I read until it can be proven! An Evolutionary psychologist… Oh jeez, give me a break. Is this a joke?

  7. SO I'm guessing if I'm religious Liberal, I'm somewhere in the middle of the 2.

    • Your number of current lovers will be the tie breaker.

  8. The discussion of this study is less enlightening than the Lionel Tiger interview in the current print edition of the magazine, in which Dr. Tiger discusses the evolutionary and biological basis for religious belief.

    Of course, if you are the sort of religious person who believes that the Bible contains all the answers, you won't be reading anything else, anyway.

  9. When conservative Charles Murray's *The Bell Curve* came out, liberals insisted in response that IQ mattered little, and Daniel Goleman published *EQ* echoing this stance.

    Watch for an about-face on the liberal stance on this issue in light of this research claim.

  10. From the strictly empirical point of view there may be something to the idea. Polls show over and over again that the better educated you are the less likely you are to vote conservative. It is also demonstrable fact that the average Liberal MP is much better educated than the average Conservative. I seem to remember an article in Macleans last year that demonstrated this conclusively.

    • Actually the only real sure bet in polling numbers is that the richer you are, the more likely you are to vote Lib or Con (almost even split).

      Furthermore, the older you are, the same tendency exists, but trends higher to the Conservatives.

      The Liberals have a *plurality* for unversity grads, but it's about 36% (Libs) to 32% (Cons). Hardly conclusive, eh chap? Do you even look at the breakdown of polling data, by age/region/education/gender?

      • The same ones you do. The discrepancy is much greater among the caucus members than it is in the general public.

      • You neglected to count the NDP supporters. They also have a pronounced tilt toward better education.

        • Hardly. Tories have 30.5% of the University vote; Liberals hold 35.6%. In fact, Tory support peaks with CEGEP and College grads.

          Page 3. http://www.cbc.ca/news/pdf/ekos-data-tables-10022

          Are you SURE you're looking at the same data? (This is last Thursday's poll) The NDP "tilt" goes from 15.0% for high school or less, to a whopping 16% for University. The Bloc and the Green Parties are the only ones holding inverse relationships on education and voting tendency.

          You sir, need to give your head a shake.

  11. Us leftards are better looking too, although the summary neglected to mention that tidbit.

  12. I'm surprised academia is even giving legitimacy to IQ studies. Didn't the left pretty much universally reject intelligence tests after the Bell Curve was published? It didn't coddle to their egalitarian view of humanity.

    For instance, America's African-American population is about 90% liberal/left. Is Kanazawa saying that they have higher IQ's than a representative sample of 40 million white conservatives? You can see where the empiricism of "studies" like Kanazawa's start to fall apart now, can't you?

    Is anyone here familiar with the institution of "race norming" used at nearly every major US university? It's an IQ handicapper is what it comes down to. Depending on your race, you can be given a B instead of the C- you actually scored, or you can be given 125 extra points on the SAT…that you didn't earn. It's an institution universally practised, but one nobody is allowed to talk about. It's all about our perceptions of intelligence.

    • “For instance, America’s African-American population is about 90% liberal/left. Is Kanazawa saying that they have higher IQ’s than a representative sample of 40 million white conservatives?”

      You must be part of the low-IQ group:

      A => B doesn’t mean that B => A. In other words the study says that Intelligent people tend to be more liberal that the others, that doesn’t mean that being liberal makes you intelligent, or that being intelligent is a prereq to being liberal. Furthermore, the African-American US population is 90% Democrat… not liberal (That is best illustrated by the result of proposition 8 in California).

      “s anyone here familiar with the institution of “race norming […]”
      So you are letting that the gap is actually much bigger that reported, since all those ‘African-American ‘liberals’ are – according to your claim – a drag on the liberal IQ ? Whoa, so the gap is actuall more tahn 11 points? Well, I wouldn’t be surprised, but thanks for pointing that out.

      • Ahhh. I see. So one isn't "liberal" unless they vote for gay marriage. I realize this is so overriding an issue of concern to the gay community, that what? 2% of Canadian gay males have actually taken advantage of the institution…and half those "marriages" fail within a few years. Boy, I'm glad we got that pressing social dilemma taken care of.

        "Beware the terrible tyranny of minorities"–Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

        Anyway, you know as I do that this "study" is so much politically motivated crap. The London School of Economics is one of the great Marxist hotbeds of Western academia (and it follows of course, a leading proponent of anti-Semitism as well). The last decent thing to come out of there was Bernard Crick's wonderful biography of George Orwell. I haven't seen an example of original thought from that institution since that's worth wasting the time reading.

  13. So essentially what he's saying is that kids who question religion are probably slightly smarter then the kids who don't bother to question it at all?

    Hell.. that applies to anything. Kids who are intellectually curious enough to question things are probably a little smarter than those that don't bother.

    Try repeating the question among adults, who've had more time to question things in general. I expect you'll find the IQ of anti-religious vs. religious levels off at that point because the "slower" kids have had a chance to start questioning it as well, bringing the general IQ level down just that couple of points. This doesn't mean that people who don't believe in religion get dumber as they get older just like it doesn't mean that people who don't believe in religion are smarter when they're younger.

  14. And just like the old Soviets will be seeking funding for Gulags for all who consider him to be a parasitic, self-absorbed fraud, we're inferior anyways. I wonder if his his data is as difficult to access as CRU's?

  15. Im an political idependant and this sounds like bullshit bias to me. What determins your intellegence is how hard you work in school, how much you read, how much tv you whatch or what kind of tv, how well your parents home schoolled you, or what your interests are. It has nothing due to beliefs or ideology.

    • “What determins your intellegence […] has nothing due to beliefs or ideology.”
      The study show that statistically intelligent people tend to be less religous. It does not say that being non-religious makes you more intelligent.
      BTW that is not the first study on the subject and most have shown the same qualitative result that this one:
      Thomas Howells, 1927
      Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
      Abraham Franzblau, 1934
      Thomas Symington, 1935
      Vernon Jones, 1938
      A. R. Gilliland, 1940
      Donald Gragg, 1942
      Brown and Love, 1951
      Michael Argyle, 1958
      Jeffrey Hadden, 1963
      Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
      James Trent, 1967
      C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
      Robert Wuthnow, 1978
      Norman Poythress, 1975
      Wiebe and Fleck, 1980

  16. I personally believe this study is bias.

    • That should be "biased

  17. What kind of BS is he linking?
    Mere correlations are NEVER an explanation of cause and effect. Let's say I have an IQ of 120 and would decide to be conservative. His theory would smashed.

    He should revise his books of research methodology before spouting that correlations are the same as cause and effect, because they are not.

    • “Mere correlations are NEVER an explanation of cause and effect. Let’s say I have an IQ of 120 and would decide to be conservative. His theory would smashed.”

      All that statement does is positively prove that you cannot possible have an IQ of 120.

      The study showed a statistical correlation. That is the only fact in the study. the attempted rationalization by the author of the study to attempt to explain that correlation is indeed speculation. but the statistical correlation shown is factual, and confirm (as far a the inverse correlation of intelligence and religiosity) many similar statistical studies done before….
      That being said, Even if you found someone with an IQ of 120 that was ‘conservative’ that would not ‘smash’ anything, just like finding one Atheist with an IQ of 80 would not ‘smash’ anything.
      There is a correlation between being tall and being a NBA player… still If you were to show me a Tall guy that is not a NBA player that would not ‘smash’ this correlation.

  18. i think this study shows that there is a strong educational bias towards liberalism …people who are in school a lot pretty much have to say they are liberals or face the consequences …and then in their real actions they are more conservatives .. far left wing people are kind of elitist ..they don't believe in everybody being equal at all …conservativism on the other hand means anybody can make it if we can get the government out of the way

  19. Tabloid journalism for junk science. How can this crap be taken seriously?

  20. What a Joke! This magazine is nothing but a liberal propaganda drop off. Before I started univeristy I was a liberal and now that I'm done I'm voting conservative. I suppose I got a little slower in the process?

    • ""University" Obviously a graduate of the University of Calgary.

      • Nice try. You couldn’t even duplicate his typo. You’re a liberal no doubt, with a stellar IQ.

  21. John Stuart Mill:

    Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

    This has been known for some time

    • "The dullard cloaks his prose in the quotes of brighter men, as the pauper cloaks his rags in the purple of kings."–Rudyard Kipling (you've probably never heard of him Gary, but he was a famous conservative)

      • Rudyard Kipling glorified the Boer Wars . A war of Empire to secure diamonds and gold under false pretexts somehat like the oil in Iraq while lying about WMD. Rudyard Kipling 'was an artist not a thinker' He could write and entertain but he was not an intellectual.

  22. Oh no! Tell me it isn't so!

    If "liberal" can serve as a euphemism for "gay", and if no other trait of character exemplifies gay males more than promiscuity, then the same man who wrote this IQ theory, Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, infers in another paper he wrote for Social Psychology Quarterly, that promiscuous males are pretty stupid people (I guess that would mean low IQ) while smarter men (I guess that would mean higher IQ) are far less likely to be promiscuous.

    http://tinyurl.com/yj4jden

  23. Liberals are more accepting of disorder in the world, while conservatives crave constant order and closure. Unfortunately we cannot explain everything but making things up in the name of closure is unhealthy. Conservatives are guilty of over simplification and easily accept dogma without issue and this explains the religious orientation of the right.
    Religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarilyevolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

    Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.”
    Sarah Palin the Queen of the right is a classic example of the mind numbing far right mind set.

  24. There is no link between intelligence and monogamy, men who are less likely to *cheat* are more likely to be monogamous. This study completely ignored people in open relationships.

Sign in to comment.