Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

[bit_pattern]

"We're smarter than you, my IQ test shows it", is a little childish. Even if it is backed by a study, it does nothing to fix the nature of current political discourse.

Stop being all reasonable and shit, beamers

 

[beamers]

hang on, so people have done these type of studies? race vs. iq

 

[bit_pattern]

I trust that's not directed at me? You've got high hopes if you expect a serious reply from this drink sodden, old reprobate!

 

[qwe]

hang on, so people have done these type of studies? race vs. iq

yes

 

[ebola?]

hang on, so people have done these type of studies? race vs. iq

LOL, yes. I've taught them to undergraduates.

I agree that in terms of mental acuity, the variance is negligible (due to a relatively recent common ancestor)

And herein lies the crux of the matter. Given how recent human migration out of Africa has been, humans have not formed isolated sub-populations for long enough to differentiate into distinct genetic groups. It just so happens, though, that melanin-content in skin was under heavy selective pressures, and changed extraordinarily quickly (on the order of tens of thousands of years) in comparison to other phenotypical characteristics.

ebola

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

We also have the issue of the issue that IQ gains in some areas have rose drastically.

For example, in the US, the average IQ in the 1930s would be around 80.

People tend to forget that IQ tests are renormalized every so often.

 

[rant*N*rave]

Correlation != causation.

Smarter people may create a more educational home life, or push their children better in schools. It may be that intelligence causes better incomes, which leads to better childhood nutrition. It could even be something weirder, such as smarter people being more likely to seek medical care, which leads to healthier children being more able to take advantage of the education which is offered.

I'm referencing studies where all of those things are accounted for. End of story: everyone's the same at the end of the day.

ebola - I was directing that at the conversation in general, not you. Yes, we agree.

My brother and I, and my family in general, are pretty testament to the genetic component of IQ. I know more "geniuses" in my family than the rest of everyone I know combined, and even with wildly different childhoods, my parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins all have very similar intellects. My mom and dad were some of the brightest among their siblings, and my brother and I are some of the brightest among our cousins. My brother and I had a very bizarre childhood with mentally ill abusive parents and a decidedly unusual parental environment in general (i.e. lots of stuff that tends to correlate with poor intellectual outcomes), and although we came out very differently (I'm doing all the "right" things, he's doing all the "wrong" things), we're both still bright in exactly the same ways our parents are. My dad's brain and mine work so similarly it's disturbing sometimes...

That all being said, AGAIN, it's on a bell curve. There's also the Flynn effect and all that.

End of story: there is a genetic component to the transmission of intelligence between generations. Don't read into that. This speaks nothing to the propagation in a given population.




Okay, super fun fact. I googled "genetic difference black white" to find the exact stat on genetic similarity between races, and the first several pages that came up were about race and IQ, even though I mentioned nothing about intelligence in my search... Popular topic, eh? But for reference:

"Human to human total genetic variation is approximately 0.5%. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are single base-pair DNA differences accounting for 0.1% variation. Of this 0.1% difference, 85% is found within any given population, 7% is found between populations within a continent and only 8% is found on average between the various continental populations. Based on this observation, evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin has claimed that accurate racial classification of humans is impossible and can have no taxonomic utility. However, this view has been rejected by geneticist A. W. F. Edwards in his paper entitled Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy (2003). Edwards argues that accurate classification of humans is possible because most of the data that distinguishes populations occurs in correlations between allele frequencies, although these classifications vary depending on a number of criteria, such as sampling strategy, type of locus, distribution of loci around the genome and number of loci. Nonetheless, Witherspoon et al. (2007) demonstrate that even when accurate classification of human populations is achieved, often individuals classified into different groups are more genetically similar to each other than to members of their own group. This seems to be due to the fact that multi-locus clustering does not take into account the genetic similarities between individuals, and only uses population level traits for comparison. They conclude that accurate classification of individuals drawn from a continuously varying human population may be impossible. Compared with most other species, the amount of genetic diversity among humans is relatively small. For example, two random chimpanzee are expected to differ by about 1 in 500 DNA base pairs, equivalent to double the diversity amongst humans. This may indicate that chimpanzees have existed as a species much longer than humans.[8]"


And another fun fact: i noticed a striking correlation when I glanced at some "studies." The ones that were trying the hardest to push a particular agenda all make really bold mention of how many pages they are/how long they are. lol

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

I'm referencing studies where all of those things are accounted for.

I doubt studies can account for things that are still unknown, and quite frankly, how childhood disease, environment, exposure to pollutants, stress, etc, are still unknown.

We have evidence that these are factors, but we can't honestly say "well, John lived 3.2 blocks from a library, while Jim lived 17.3 blocks from a library, therefore John's IQ will be, on average, 3.2 points higher."

 

[SubDude]

the core of conservativism is status quo... that being the case, how is this ideology helping? on the flip side, change to alleviate suffering comes from the progressive side. i can see how this is helping; it's been happening slowly but accelerating throughout history

Hmm... so liberals are responsible for alleviating suffering in the world.

Examples please!

 

[SubDude]

We have evidence that these are factors, but we can't honestly say "well, John lived 3.2 blocks from a library, while Jim lived 17.3 blocks from a library, therefore John's IQ will be, on average, 3.2 points higher."

Do we have any evidence on what happens when young avg Johnny is adopted and raised by 180 IQ genius Mary who is a PHD at Stanford in Calif? And his twin brother Jimmy is adopted and raised by Kathy who is HS dropout and a waitress at Denny's in Miss?

Whose gonna be smarter and will one by a lib and the other a con?

 

[ebola?]

The ones that were trying the hardest to push a particular agenda all make really bold mention of how many pages they are/how long they are.

wut? I don't think that I've seen this in at least a decade of regularly engaging published primary studies. Sounds like a good way to bias peer-reviewers toward leaving the comment, "STFU".

 

[ebola?]

I doubt studies can account for things that are still unknown, and quite frankly, how childhood disease, environment, exposure to pollutants, stress, etc, are still unknown.

I think that studies of monozygotic twins are pretty well generalizable in suggesting the proportion of variance in IQ accounted for by genetic factors (this is with ANOVA for hypothesis-testing). Care needs be taken when generalizing though: the sample will only generalize to a population with an identical space of variation of environmental influences on IQ.

If we actually want to describe how particular genetic factors interact with particular environmental factors, let alone how they might exert overall causal influence, we run into all of the additional problems of generalizability from general linear models, as you note in the rest of your post.

ebola

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

I think that studies of monozygotic twins are pretty well generalizable in suggesting the proportion of variance in IQ accounted for by genetic factors (this is with ANOVA for hypothesis-testing). Care needs be taken when generalizing though: the sample will only generalize to a population with an identical space of variation of environmental influences on IQ.

But there are criticisms of twin studies.

For example, dizygotic twins tend to be born to older women. Do older women show the same amount of care and attention as younger women to their children?

 

[ebola?]

yup. The modifier "pretty well" matters.


ebola

 

[Jimi Thing]

I don't like that liberals advocate free handouts and I don't like that conservatives support the corrupt ways of big businesses. Both sides have flaws and until people start focusing on that fact rather than supporting one side and putting down the other, our system will continue to be flawed.

 

[qwe]

^ so then it's safe to assume these free services like police and firemen and road repair should no longer be free... ?

if not, what makes them so different from a foodstamp type program?

either way it's a collective tool we use to improve our society. you also need to have the awareness that if somebody is taking foodstamps, they are in a desperate situation: the alternative often involves things like theft or the black market to feed the family. spending on the foodstamps, on the other hand, not only provides them some stability in their lives and ability to increase their footing, but this money has a much greater effect on the economy than any tax break, going directly back into the economy after it's been issued

when logic and empathy are on the same side... count me left

 

[Jimi Thing]

^ so then it's safe to assume these free services like police and firemen and road repair should no longer be free... ?

if not, what makes them so different from a foodstamp type program?

Sorry but that's a ridiculous comparison. We PAY taxes to receive these services from the government. They are not free, just socialized. People on welfare are leeching off the system. They take money from the government and contribute nothing to society in return. I'm not saying get rid of the system, but it needs to be reformed so we can separate those with legitimate reasons for need welfare from the leeches.

 

[SubDude]

Originally Posted by qwe
the core of conservativism is status quo... that being the case, how is this ideology helping? on the flip side, change to alleviate suffering comes from the progressive side. i can see how this is helping; it's been happening slowly but accelerating throughout history

Examples apparently not forthcoming from this profound statement. No surprise...

 

[qwe]

the core of conservativism is status quo... that being the case, how is this ideology helping? on the flip side, change to alleviate suffering comes from the progressive side. i can see how this is helping; it's been happening slowly but accelerating throughout history

Hmm... so liberals are responsible for alleviating suffering in the world.

Examples please!

women voting, *

black people voting, *

ending slavery, which was the republican party, but at that historical period the republican party's politics more closely correlated with "progressive" politics,

nowadays most social programs for the poor are a more progressive thing,

pacifism seems to be a more radical or "liberal" idea (never conservative),

opposition to wars,

green movement,

much of that gay friendly, black friendly, women empowering crap,

et al.

* progressives were the first to champion universalism; most modern conservatives now accept universalism though

since the progressive side is so anti-status-quo, what do you think its motives are? increasing suffering by creating a police state? (if you think so you'd have communism confused with authoritarianism)

not only do progressives attempt to address social ills (the motivation being alleviating suffering, aka, making the world a better place; why else? i'm having trouble understanding how you could even ask the question; of course our policies attempt to do that, it's humane. hey that's another thing, humanism), progressive policies are also much more in line with science and empirical evidence (motivation of intellect as opposed to feelings that, when applied globally, lead to increased conflict: nationalism, religion, etc)

you didn't seem to have a problem with the idea that your side is on the side of the status quo / the current social heirarchy/arrangements/institutions of society, or at least, your side's vision is closer to the status quo. i think it's obvious that the status quo has a lot of suffering...

in fact, that applies to the status quo at any point in history, so even if you respond by saying "i want to go in a direction... to the good old days" that doesn't work

it should be noted that we are discussing averages and tendencies... and it should be noted that my perspective of history is one of progress (and cycles, but with an overall upward trend)

basically, progressives are more open minded on average (empirically, and theoretically as described in this post )

 

[Wyld 4 X]

since the progressive side is so anti-status-quo, what do you think its motives are? increasing suffering by creating a police state? (if you think so you'd have communism confused with authoritarianism)

I would argue that not reforming what the progressives began is also a form of status quo, no? What FDR established (i.e. social security, SEC, FDIC, FHA) and others created later on were good but some of those programs are in need of reform because they have been let run rampant and without oversight for far too long. This has resulted in class warfare and more poverty that it was intended to improve. Socio-economic factors notwithstanding, how can someone with a progressive mindset not consider programs that are over half a century old not be a part of the status-quo?

When the Republicans bring up any discussion about reforming social security or medicare spending, etc. it is defended like some sacred cow. I'm not saying the Republicans have great ideas on how to make these programs better but at least they want to open the matter to discussion. In my mind, that shows some open-mindedness on a topic that progressives refuse to broach. And I wonder why that is if these programs are so wonderful and have helped so many for so long now......

basically, progressives are more open minded on average (empirically, and theoretically as described in this post )

Sure, now pass the bong dude.