Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

[qwe]

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.

---

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

click for more if interested, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...y-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

and behold the provocative data!

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

As a liberal, I am assured of my intelligence by assuming that my membership in a group means I must be intelligent.

Also, I demonstrate my intelligence by massaging my ego with this fact.

 

[yougene]

Because IQ tests are part of the liberal agenda.

 

[Max Power]

troll thread?

 

[yougene]

You must be a liberal

 

[qwe]

^you've no idea

troll thread?

i know it's provocative, especially the title (i didn't name the blog). but i think it has potential for good discussion about the difference between conservatives and liberals, and how/why certain people go the conservative path and others the liberal path

obviously, i don't agree with everything in the article. and i expect some ass kicking rebuttals from the conservatives around here

 

[Apostacious]

The only thing this blog is wrong about is assuming that there is causation between intelligence and empathy. Indeed, some very intelligent people can be incredibly selfish and cruel to others. However, conservatism, as it is portrayed in this thread, doesn't completely espouse the "virtue" of selfishness. Yes, it is indeed the major motivating factor in agendas which drives conservative politicians.

I agree that the proper response to modern problems is seen in progressive liberal ideas. The United States is heading towards peak oil, water shortages, over-population, climate change, a social-security crisis, another housing bubble, a critically unregulated financial system, and so on. The answer to these problems is not seen in any conservative agenda. Raising taxes across the board, regulating the fuck out of the financial industry, making sure that resources are evenly distributed and making sure that power doesn't remain incumbent within rich families and social circles are absolutely ways to confront said problems. Then there are conservatives.

The only things that conservatives are worried about are (or at least, what they are publicly worried about): Tax cuts for the rich (oh wait, they mean small business owners... yeah right, most small business owners don't earn more than $200,000); drill baby drill til we run out, and when we do, kill some fucking dirty Muzzies; bomb the fuck out of Iran, North Korea, and any other funny looking country that doesn't like our proxy countries; create more security infrastructure and cut taxes at the same time; get rid of all the fucking illegal aliens that we secretly love, because they are what keeps ground beef below $2 a pound; get rid of welfare, and if you're disabled, tough shit, you're on your own, unless you have a rich daddy like all of the conservative politicians do, oh yeah, and if you're black/hispanic, and on welfare, YOU BETTER NOT BE; getting reach-arounds from corporations as they dictate legislation; CUT TAXES and GOTO WAR.

Now, of course, the progressive liberal agenda is usually the opposite of the above, except they too enjoy reach-arounds, because that is just how business is done in Washington.

 

[marsmellow]

This doesn't really explain why they are.

What is the connection between evolutionary novelty and intelligence? The author doesn't explain it, but implies that there is some connection. So, what is it?

As a liberal, I am assured of my intelligence by assuming that my membership in a group means I must be intelligent..

I know you're being sarcastic, but no, it doesn't mean that. It means that on average, a liberal is going to score higher on an IQ test than a conservative is going to. Obviously, there are plenty of dumb liberals and plenty of smart conservatives, but the average liberal is going to be smarter than the average conservative. There are more smart people in one group, and more dumb people in the other. It doesn't mean that every person in the group is smart or dumb.

 

[qwe]

indeed. see, i knew i was smart as fuck before i became a socialist

 

[Cyc]

What is the connection between evolutionary novelty and intelligence?

That question was met with the hypothesis that there is a connection, and that hypothesis was supported by their data, however accurate it may be.

 

[marsmellow]

Conservatives have faith and gut feelings. Liberals have logic and evidence. That's a generalization, and not always true, but in my experience, it usually is. That is what the two groups (usually) base their ideas on.

Imagine that two people are confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs.

The conservative will usually stick to their guns, and automatically assume that the evidence must be wrong in some way. Because they have faith in their ideas. They are sure that they are right.

The liberals have a number of strategies for dealing with this. Like thinking of an alternative explanation that's consistent with liberal beliefs, looking for different evidence, etc. But if those things don't work, they might abandon the belief. Because they are open to the possibility that they might be wrong.

The difference is doubt. Liberals have more doubt about their ideas than conservatives do. Doubt makes you more open minded, and more intellectually curious. And open-mindedness and curiosity lead to increased intelligence.

Maybe that is why.

Edit: I might have got that backwards. It's possible that intelligence leads to doubt, open-mindedness and curiosity. Not the other way around. It's kind of a chicken or egg question...

That question was met with the hypothesis that there is a connection, and that hypothesis was supported by their data, however accurate it may be.

But why are they connected, and how does the connection explain why liberals are more intelligent? Because liberalism is a novel idea, and intelligent people are more likely to adopt novel ideas?

 

[IAmJacksUserName]

Smug as hell article that is clearly biased toward liberalism. The first paragraph reveals the whole hypothesis to be a self-serving piece of shit.

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.

Yeah, so me, a college student who pays virtually no taxes and advocates for a progressive tax model, is somehow more concerned about personally helping others and contributing my personal resources for others' welfare than a better-off person who would actually bear the brunt of said progressive taxes? Riiiiigght....

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.

So, conservatives are being bad even when they ARE giving money to charity. There's just no way out for them, other than to admit they are all a bunch of unevolved apes and accept the superior intelligence and morality of the liberals.

 

[Kenickie]

this is really circlejerkish, no?

 

[qwe]

^well a conservative finally dropped by, so the progressive orgasms will stop and give way to progressive spasms

 

[qwe]

Yeah, so me, a college student who pays virtually no taxes and advocates for a progressive tax model, is somehow more concerned about personally helping others and contributing my personal resources for others' welfare than a better-off person who would actually bear the brunt of said progressive taxes? Riiiiigght....

many support a progressive tax scheme for the economy, themselves, and other selfish interests. many support it for selfless reasons. and many support it for both. i think it's clear that the article is discussing *averages*, varying but overall consistent and measureable differences between groups of people

So, conservatives are being bad even when they ARE giving money to charity

i agree, the article does go a bit far there. though the point has merit in some circumstances

 

[Khadijah]

wow, could this article be any more smug?

I just wanted to point out that IQ tests are a shitty measure of intelligence and I dont put much weight into them anyways. but anyways , this type of shit is just the pat-yourself-on-the-back "im beter than you" shit that makes so many conservatives think liberals are the upper class kinda douchey type of "we care sooo much!" kinda mutha fuckas...I dont like the attitude of this article at all. it dont do no favors to nobody. i hate shit like this, circlejerkish is right, SMH. this type shit aint no better than the crazy ultra conservative fox news crap.

 

[MistaJeff]

I'm always down for a good circle jerk.

 

[qwe]

this type shit aint no better than the crazy ultra conservative fox news crap.

the blogger is really smug, and he'd probably be as dishonest as fox news if he had a news corporation

but let's ask the question, are progressives, on average, more intelligent than conservatives?

 

[rant*N*rave]

Let's also ask the question "Is 12 points difference on a small sample of IQ tests statistically significant?" Well, I suppose I don't know that it's a small sample, but I'm assuming that it is... Those error bars seem very suspect to me, especially given that the ones on either end are the biggest and those are the ones meant to be the most telling... Let's also ask whether this holds true across the planet or just in Westernized countries. Let's also ask whether this is due to familial bias because smart people tend to have smart kids, and smart people tend to live in big cities, and people living in big cities tend to be more liberal as a result of the way they are exposed to society.


I think others have made all the relevant points about why this is hogwash. Particularly this:

Yeah, so me, a college student who pays virtually no taxes and advocates for a progressive tax model, is somehow more concerned about personally helping others and contributing my personal resources for others' welfare than a better-off person who would actually bear the brunt of said progressive taxes? Riiiiigght....

It's easy to be generous when it's somebody else's money you're giving away. I don't see liberals holding fundraisers to create college scholarships, even though there are plenty of rich liberals that could afford to... They simply demand that I give money to create college scholarships. Altruism seems to be defined in a rather odd way here...

 

[SvnLyrBrto]

It's easy to be generous when it's somebody else's money you're giving away. I don't see liberals holding fundraisers to create college scholarships, even though there are plenty of rich liberals that could afford to... They simply demand that I give money to create college scholarships. Altruism seems to be defined in a rather odd way here...

You conveniently leave out the fact that those same liberals who want taxes to pay for higher education would also, themselves, be paying those higher taxes. It's a perfectly valid school of thought (and a fairly common one in many places, especially Western Europe) that some services, such as funding education, are a necessary and proper function of government that should not be left to individual short-term whim.