Study finds Liberals and Atheists smarter than conservative/religious people

[CptStern]

but it's more than just being smarter; they're saying that mankind owes it's progress to people who questioned the norm; those people just happen to be the non religious and embody liberal attitudes:

The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

therefore conservatives are evolutionary albatrosses around our collective necks and should be exterminated ...I'm ok with that

 

[Dan]

That definition of conservative vs liberal does not match the political definition or the historical definition.

 

[Raziaar]

Yeah... we don't need to inject this into political discourse. The stupidity of a lot of things conservatives stand for is self evident without tossing in a study that will undoubtedly be heavily contested.

 

[No Limit]

Yeah... we don't need to inject this into political discourse. The stupidity of a lot of things conservatives stand for is self evident without tossing in a study that will undoubtedly be heavily contested.

Yeah, lets ignore science because many people that are not scientists will disagree with it.

 

[Dan]

The speculation in the conclusion reeks of made up BS too.

 

[Raziaar]

Yeah, lets ignore science because many people that are not scientists will disagree with it.

That's not the ****ing point.

The point is... what is it going to bring to the table? It's just going to be a case of "we're smarter than you guys and science backs us up!". And that accomplishes NOTHING.

Plus... it's a single study. It's hardly Darwin Theory of Evolution that we should bring into the classrooms to discuss.


I'm more interested in telling people that they're stupid by pointing out all the numerous actions and beliefs that they have that make them stupid, not some study that says they were born slightly less intelligent. It's only talking about IQ anyway(with differences of just 11 points)... which I think is a fairly bogus standard of intelligence measurement.

 

[CptStern]

Yeah... we don't need to inject this into political discourse. The stupidity of a lot of things conservatives stand for is self evident without tossing in a study that will undoubtedly be heavily contested.

it's already being misconstrued.


the point of the study is that inelligent people are more likely to latch on to new ideas over less intelligent people. the offshoot of the article is that conservative people are less intelligent than non conservative people but it's not really the focus of the study

That definition of conservative vs liberal does not match the political definition or the historical definition.

this has nothing to do with the study at all. liberal and conservative meaning the state of being not political affiliation

 

[Tyguy]

i'm curious as to what party affiliation has the most cases of mental disorders...

 

[Raziaar]

you're saying this, the article isnt

I'm responding to you, because you're saying it. And many others who share your philosophy of simply trying to say they're stupid rather than just proving them wrong at every turn.

I mean come on stern... it's no surprise a majority of your political threads do that. I've even had a share of my own.

 

[Acepilotf14]

IQ tests measure the ability to learn and adapt to new environments well.

It's not at all a fair measure of intelligence, but generally it does a decent job, especially with repeated tests.

I bet they brought in the most biased people to take the test.

 

[CptStern]

I'm responding to you, because you're saying it. And many others who share your philosophy of simply trying to say they're stupid rather than just proving them wrong at every turn.

I mean come on stern... it's no surprise a majority of your political threads do that.

you're hilarious. you make a mistake because you couldnt be bothered to read the material provided then go all apeshit saying this study shouldnt have been and then when your mistake is pointed out to you, you wash your hands of it and instead try to blame the thread and the person for posting it. it's YOUR fault for associating "liberal" and "conservative" with poltiical parties rather than ideologies as the article makes clear

 

[Raziaar]

you're hilarious. you make a mistake because you couldnt be bothered to read the material provided then go all apeshit saying this study shouldnt have been and then when your mistake is pointed out to you, you wash your hands of it and instead try to blame the thread and the person for posting it. it's YOUR fault for associating "liberal" and "conservative" with poltiical parties rather than ideologies as the article makes clear

Please point out where I say this study shouldn't have been.

Also... You cannot honestly believe what you're saying there, because you were doing exactly that. Don't give me that crap either about "I wasn't equating the conservatives discussed in the article with conservative political movements."

Because everyone... and I do mean EVERYONE knows that's not how you work around here. You were probably thinking as you made the post... "Haha, all those conservatives in the article make up the entirety of the republican party. Hahahaha this is great stuff."

 

[CptStern]

Please point out where I say this study shouldn't have been.

ok:

The point is... what is it going to bring to the table? It's just going to be a case of "we're smarter than you guys and science backs us up!". And that accomplishes NOTHING.

Also... You cannot honestly believe what you're saying there, because you were doing exactly that. Don't give me that crap either about "I wasn't equating the conservatives discussed in the article with conservative political movements."

what? I diont understand any of that

Because everyone... and I do mean EVERYONE knows that's not how you work around here.

apparently this only applies to people who dont read the OP:

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel.

to anyone without a chip on their shoulder this clearly means attitudes and not political affiliation

 

[nurizeko]

The point is... what is it going to bring to the table? It's just going to be a case of "we're smarter than you guys and science backs us up!". And that accomplishes NOTHING.

Yes it does, it proves we're almost always right. I've never had an argument with a religious conservative where their position made any actual sense.

 

[Raziaar]

Yes it does, it proves we're almost always right. I've never had an argument with a religious conservative where their position made any actual sense.

That's when you point out the absurdities of their position rather than simply just saying, "because you're intellectually inferior!". I mean shit... that's what they do.

"Libtard!" - because they have no good way to counter your positions.

 

[Maestro]

therefore conservatives are evolutionary albatrosses around our collective necks and should be exterminated ...I'm ok with that

How very progressive. :upstare:

 

[Escaep]

therefore conservatives are evolutionary albatrosses around our collective necks and should be exterminated ...I'm ok with that

Statements like these make you look like an idiot.

 

[unozero]

it takes a semi smarter person to be in Atheist in the first place.

 

[jverne]

Statements like these make you look like an idiot.

Obviously that's sarcasm.

 

[Maestro]

Obviously that's sarcasm.

Yeah...

Never, ever take anything Stern says seriously. That's why my reply was sarcastic.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

We already knew religiousness is for dumdums and smarties are god haties.

 

[Krynn72]

How very progressive. :upstare:

Statements like these make you look like an idiot.

You guys are so god damn stup...err... religious!

 

[Danimal]

Statements like these make you look like an idiot.

When I read CptStern, or better yet, anyone, make a statement like that; I can't help but feel reminded of jverne.

 

[15357]

I'm an atheist, and also extremely conservative, so I guess it all evens out, doesn't it?

 

[nurizeko]

I'm an atheist, and also extremely conservative, so I guess it all evens out, doesn't it?

You're above mere human categories, Numbers.

 

[lord_raken]

Wow, the amount of assumptions and predisposed prejudices in this thread are absolutely staggering.

The only think I can gather is the, purely evolutionarily speaking, People with a stronger sense of family unity are more likely to survive while people who don't have a strong family centered life are more likely to go lemming on us a jump off a cliff? Isn't evolution what makes us better suited for survival as both individuals and a species?

You DID think about connecting this to the political parties and your Thread title makes that pretty obvious.

Also, intelligence has little to do with one's paradigm or world view. Some of the most brilliant people I know are political and religious conservatives. Its not a matter of intelligence but of faith... big difference there bud.

Their denial of evolution is not more ridiculous then your delusional beliefs that the government is your friend and that it won't turn on you once you give it all your power... trust me it will. Then the USA will have to come bail you out unless we've been stupid enough to enter into the socialist suicide pact that is so popular today in the "progressive world"

(that felt good... LOL)

 

[CptStern]

Statements like these make you look like an idiot.

actually if you understood the point of the study and what it was saying you'd see that it was in fact a very clever thing to say. on more than one level ..but I think it's obvious that it went over your head.

evolution yadda yadda durn evilutionists

ffs people, the study has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution but rather the willingness of people to either stay within their comfort zone (evolutionary familiars - (things that are familiar from a traditional pov) in other words conservatism ..not conservatism as a political ideology) or people who are able to go outside of their comfort zones (evolutionary novel (new, progressive) preferences and values

the by product of this study is that people who are atheist/liberal (evolutionary novel preference)are more intelligent than religious/conservative people (evolutionary familiar preferences)

the problem here is in condensing these ideas to a single headline; people without ADD will move beyond the headline and into the heart of the issue presented in the study.

 

[Ravioli]

I knew this thread was going to turn into a major cluster****, thats why im avoiding posting in it.

Oh wait

 

[Maestro]

I knew this thread was going to turn into a major cluster****, thats why im avoiding posting in it.

Oh wait

Too late now, sucka!

 

[jondy]

ITT: Stern stirs shit up, acts all innocent-like

 

[Mogi67]

actually if you understood the point of the study and what it was saying you'd see that it was in fact a very clever thing to say. on more than one level ..but I think it's obvious that it went over your head.





ffs people, the study has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution but rather the willingness of people to either stay within their comfort zone (evolutionary familiars - (things that are familiar from a traditional pov) in other words conservatism ..not conservatism as a political ideology) or people who are able to go outside of their comfort zones (evolutionary novel (new, progressive) preferences and values

the by product of this study is that people who are atheist/liberal (evolutionary novel preference)are more intelligent than religious/conservative people (evolutionary familiar preferences)

the problem here is in condensing these ideas to a single headline; people without ADD will move beyond the headline and into the heart of the issue presented in the study.

Going by this definition of evolutionary novel, one could then make a case that Christianity falls under the category of an evolutionary novel ideology. During the first few centuries CE, Christianity was considered progressive to the point where it was nonsensical. Ethical notions such as human rights, economic and social justice, legal equality, or even basic human dignity would have been unintelligible in a pre-Christian society. I think this study's own claims of what is evolutionary novel or evolutionary familiar are a little convoluted. Given the fact that the west was almost completely Christian until the past century or two, it's obvious that the evolutionary familiar is going to be conservatively religious, so it seems to be more of a cultural question rather than whether religious belief itself denotes a lack of reason or intelligence.

 

[Shyam]

A thread that finally says What CptStern thinks and is supported by a study.



Finally.

 

[Solaris]

Going by this definition of evolutionary novel, one could then make a case that Christianity falls under the category of an evolutionary novel ideology. During the first few centuries CE, Christianity was considered progressive to the point where it was nonsensical. Ethical notions such as human rights, economic and social justice, legal equality, or even basic human dignity would have been unintelligible in a pre-Christian society. I think this study's own claims of what is evolutionary novel or evolutionary familiar are a little convoluted. Given the fact that the west was almost completely Christian until the past century or two, it's obvious that the evolutionary familiar is going to be conservatively religious, so it seems to be more of a cultural question rather than whether religious belief itself denotes a lack of reason or intelligence.

Come on my friend, you're from Greece! Ever hear of Plato? Aristotle?

 

[Shyam]

Come on my friend, you're from Greece! Ever hear of Plato? Aristotle?

Yes, but now I hear Greece is somewhat not in good shape. Besides Christianity is strong there.

I think.

 

[Solaris]

Yes, but now I hear Greece is somewhat not in good shape. Besides Christianity is strong there.

I think.

Ah, but he was saying morality could not develop without christianity.

 

[Shyam]

Ah, but he was saying morality could not develop without christianity.

Guess Buddhism don't count as a religion. Actually a lot of non christian religions have a concept of Human dignity at least. If his argument is, without religion there can be no morals, Hahaha he is so wrong it's not funny.

 

[Solaris]

Guess Buddhism don't count as a religion.

In many forms, I believe it does not. However what is the relevace here. Aristotle was not a Buddhist.

The fact is, morality develops in spite of religion - not becuase of it.

 

[Shyam]

In many forms, I believe it does not. However what is the relevace here. Aristotle was not a Buddhist.

The fact is, morality develops in spite of religion - not becuase of it.

Yes, because in order for a society to function properly, they need some basic rules. Like do not murder, steal. I think the vast majority of societies have them.
Otherwise it is utter chaos.

 

[Solaris]

Yes, because in order for a society to function properly, they need some basic rules. Like do not murder, steal. I think the vast majority of societies have them.
Otherwise it is utter chaos.

Exactly, and to paraphrase Hitchens, it's not like the Jews could have wandered the desert for 40 years, got to mount siani thinking murder and theft were OK till Moses brought down the commandments.

The truth is everyone is instilled with basic morality, the golden rule does not need to be taught and in a civil society can flourish.

 

[Mogi67]

Ah, but he was saying morality could not develop without christianity.

I'm not from Greece, I spent last semester there, I'm back in the US now. Anyways, I did not say that morality could not develop without Christianity. Anyways, since the argument is going this way, so be it.

Atheists cannot justifiably claim to form a structure of morality without having to hold fast to some sort of universal truth or system of belief. In a wholly secular society, any common ethic that was agreed upon would be arbitrary, since it would be merely based on a wide consensus rather than an absolute standard. All that would be required for a person to refute the morality of an atheistic society would be simply to say "I disagree".