Liberals more Intelligent than Conservatives: Study Shows

[Visvaldis]

Originally Posted by Booya

No. I was specifically noting all of the posters on this forum who are liberals who are continually espousing their self-claimed superior intelligence.

There is a current thread that was started recently as well as multiple posts just this morning with this theme.

My point is that if they are in fact superior why do they have to keep up the chest thumping? I'm embarrassed for them. Do they have insecurities regarding their intelligence so that they have to keep pointing it out and reassuring themselves or what?

And it does point to a lack of emotional intelligence/people skills.

You might have missed one poster (a conservative) who claims superior intelligence , an IQ above 150. You could be right about the insecurities.
People skills are not necessarily an indication of a high IQ.
How is 'emotional intelligence' measured? Is it an opinion? An personal evaluation? Or is it some vague, ambiguous term with 50 million definitions?

[Zekester]

Originally Posted by migee

Many of the posters here are right - Liberals are less successful at everything, other than garnering some votes every now and then.

It may be a good indication that IQ tests are simply measuring the wrong things...for success, which is what intelligence is really about.

This post is ridiculous. Winners and losers span both sides of the political spectrum. It's easy to ascertain from the various posts here on the POC forum that both conservatives and liberals tend to oversimplify and stereotype each other to the point of caricature. It's absolutely hilarious that each side considers it's members to be intellectually superior to the opposition. The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle. I've met both wealthy as well as blue collar conservatives and I've found that liberals also come in both varieties. Where do you think the term "limousine liberal" came from?

I don't see either the conservative mind or the liberal mind as superior. They're just different and I think that the answer can be found in biology. It's well known that the human brain is divided into two hemispheres each with different functions. The left hemisphere is analytical whereas the right hemisphere is more creative and intuitive. It is also well known that while all human beings use both of their hemispheres most people favor one over the other and lean on it more. Each side has it's strengths and it's weaknesses. If you're left brain dominate you may be very rational and logical, but also rigid and less capable of novel ideas or creative problem solving. If you're right brain dominate you might be very creative and full of original ideas, but struggle in areas that the left brain oriented consider common sense.

Taking the above into account it's easy too see a left brain dominate individual as a businessman or a doctor, both of which tend to be politically conservative. On the flip side the right brain dominate would make better actors, artists, and musicians most of which are notoriously politically liberal. Both of these examples are very polarized and simplified for the sake of illustration. Of course there would be many variations in between. I'm not trying to make the claim that this idea is THE answer, but I do think that it's logical and interesting. I would love to see an in depth scientific study done along these lines. I think it has the potential to shed some light on the reasons why intelligent people can disagree so vehemently.

[Booya]

Originally Posted by Visvaldis

You might have missed one poster (a conservative) who claims superior intelligence , an IQ above 150. You could be right about the insecurities.
People skills are not necessarily an indication of a high IQ.
How is 'emotional intelligence' measured? Is it an opinion? An personal evaluation? Or is it some vague, ambiguous term with 50 million definitions?

No, I didn't miss the one poster who stated as a fact that he had a high IQ and gave the actual number,.
He did not say he was intelllectually superior but that he had a high IQ.

And I agree that people skills are not necessarily an inducation of a high IQ but having a high IQ and very poor people skills sometimes makes a very unattractive and hard to take personality IMO!
Here is a link; 7 types of intelligence if anyone cares to read:
Howard Gardner* Seven Types of Intelligence

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by Ecovlke

" 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."

Read the entire article here,
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

Yeah....like those "very liberal" people that have been on the government dole for years are highly intellectual? Puh-leeze, get over yourselves.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Ecovlke

Agreed! We would have to read the peer reviewed publication to analyze those things.

But so far, I've seen very little posted in the political group that is beyond race-bait, nonsensical, irrational, shock jock, tabloid equivalent material ready for the compost pile.

It seems to me the political group of threads is more for rants, venting, and baiting.

Sooo, pa-leese. Give me a break.

So because others might not support their positions, then it is ok for you to as well? And here I thought citing a source when making a claim, especially one as volatile as this was simply good intellectual practice?

It appears to me that those of lesser intellectual capability would be the ones who would use fallacious grounds to defend their lack of support, guess us stupid conservatives just don't understand the complexities of the lefts mind. Must be too hard for us to understand. /shrug

Originally Posted by Ecovlke

The researcher's name is, Satoshi Kanazawa. The study was published in the peer reviewed journal, Social Psychology Quarterly.

And here it is:

http://online.sagepub.com/search/res...nazawa&x=0&y=0

This is the abstract:

Abstract

The origin of values and preferences is an unresolved theoretical question in behavioral and social sciences. The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, derived from the Savanna Principle and a theory of the evolution of general intelligence, suggests that more intelligent individuals may be more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values and preferences (such as liberalism and atheism and, for men, sexual exclusivity) than less intelligent individuals, but that general intelligence may have no effect on the acquisition and espousal of evolutionarily familiar values (for children, marriage, family, and friends). The analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys (Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence significantly increases adult liberalism, atheism, and men’s (but not women’s) value on sexual exclusivity.

looks like the abstract doesn't say much. Not uncommon for poor research to not summarize a proper abstract which breaks into the components of the summary, test bed, methodology, confidence, and conclusion.

This is simply a summary, reference to its source and a conclusion.

Interesting that the paper's own abstract is as vague as the news source quoting it.

Would be nice to actually read it. Though I am unwilling to pay 32 dollars to view it, especially considering how poor the format of the abstract is.

Maybe you read it? I would assume that an intellectual such as yourself reviews such material in depth before even accepting such a conclusion? Or is this another one of those "intellectual" things us stupid conservatives just don't understand? Maybe it is simply that because it espouses such claims of the superiority of liberal minds that this would be evidence enough to hold such a conclusion? Sorry if I am a little slow here, I am conservative after all and so that means I have very little education and intellectual ability, so bare with me.

Maybe you could link us the methodology section since you have read it?

I am assuming you also read the details of the two studies to which he pulled from correct?

National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), 1994-2002 (http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/21600/detail;jsessionid=2F7CB998EB600AEE1A5062BA49FAB1A5 - broken link)

General Social Survey


ICPSR and GSS are interesting, but it is simply questionnaires of students and families and general population on random issues which is honestly just an epidemiological study of populations to which they run statistical systems to try and find correlations to which they can neither confirm or deny their validity.

Then you stack on the research you provided which is simply research analysis of the others research which again stacks on top of that assumptions and deals with variables through statistical likelihood and you end up with a bunch of guesses driving more guesses. If traditional science followed such principals, we would still be in the stone age.

Likely, due to Kanazawa's reputation with playing fast and lose with the data and his methodologies to form conclusions (he is actually known by statisticians as being a voodoo doctor when it concerns statistical methodology and practice) and it isn't a surprise his research produced such a "political" and "arrogant" research topic and conclusion.

Though it would be far more interesting to read his methodology though. I mean, he really likes to apply some whoopers of applications in this methods, but who is stupid enough to pay 32 dollars for research of this nature? We already know that anything he can provide is inconclusive (it is simply a fact of the issue) and so all this would be is making wild assumptions and using spurious correlations to proclaim causation and anyone with a shred of intellectual capacity certainly knows this is simply "blowing smoke up ones arse".

Ah, Psychology and epidemiological research, to mates that were meant to be! After all, they have no place in actual science. /shrug

Go ahead though, please argue his case. I mean, you posted it, certainly you would have an inkling as to what he did and how he came to conclusions? Please do not tell me that an intellectual as yourself simply takes things on faith because you agree with them? Wouldn't that be actually anti-intellectual?