Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly."
"The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them."
"Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a "new" preference."
"Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly."
"The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them."
"Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a "new" preference."
Very interesting. Makes sense to me.
It is very interesting and the other day on anti-gay thread, I said that maybe in days of old, nature needed assure that the population grew. Now that we are over populated, homosexulaity can come of age for a portion of the population. As for religion, way back when if there were not a set of laws to guide people it would have been utter chaos. If we are this stupid and ignorant now, can you imagine the average person back then? Yes, we still need rules and laws, but the Bible put the fear of God into people and that is what was necessary to keep the superstitious lot in line.
Last edited by sickofnyc; 02-26-2010 at 07:57 PM..
If you read the story, you'll see that the two researchers describe themselves as "conservative" and "strongly libertarian".
I guess it's easier to just dismiss the results if you disagree with them.
I've seen enough of these studies claiming mental/intelligence/educational deficiency/superiority amongst every political group, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc., to place absolutely no value in them.
I've seen enough of these studies claiming mental/intelligence/educational deficiency/superiority amongst every political group, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc., to place absolutely no value in them.
George W. Bush campaigned as the "common sense" candidate, and look what happened.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.