Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

[panzerfaust]

Source: CNN

(CNN) -- Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

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 IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.

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...

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=C2

---

Now, if only we knew what IQ is actually a measure of ...

[tekisui]

1. They make it sound like we liberal atheists are on the cusp

of evolution.

[Socal31]

2. Well the Right thinks Obama is liberal, and the Left thinks he is

a conservative Democrat.


See the problem with a study like this?

[panzerfaust]

4. SELF identification of one's posistion was likely determinative

The real problem, as I see it, is that it remains unclear what IQ is a measure of.

Certainly IQ is not a measure of creativity.

{on edit}
But this was not right with respect to political views ("The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines 'liberal' in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people."), though it was with respect to religion ("Participants who said they were atheists...")

[1monster]

32. I think that maybe I.Q. is a measure of how fast one can learn and retrieve information; not a

measure of how much one can learn.

Many years ago, I saw a story on 60 MINUTES about two young Jewish boys who both had Downs Syndrome. Both wanted to be Bar Mitzvahed . However, in order to be Bar Mitzvahed, the young man had to be able to speak some of the Hebrew language. The Hebrew language, apparently, is not an easy one to learn.

These two young men were motivated, though, and did learn the language. It took them two years longer than the young men who had "normal" I.Q., but they did get their Bar Mitzvah.

My theory is that given enough time and the motivation, anyone CAN learn anything they want to as long as they are willing to put the effort into it.

[Lorien]

18. Obama self identifies as a Centrist

And this study does not mention Obama.

[DailyGrind51]

75. He is also a man of faith and practicing Christian.

[Tutankhamun]

84. So he claims. It's possible he converted to a "believer" because of political ambitions.

The same is true of Bill Clinton. At the very least, both men are aware that they had to be seen as "Christian" and profess their "faith" if they ever hoped to become President.

Does having faith in the supernatural help American politicians win elections or does the desire to win elections compel American politicians to profess belief in the supernatural?

[Fumesucker]

3. Atheists and agnostics also have the lowest divorce rate..

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

[bergie321]

6. I read somewhere

That states that have legalized gay marriage have a much lower divorce rate than states that have Constitutional bans on gay marriage.

[Fumesucker]

9. That's because the most fundie dominated states have the gay marriage bans..

And fundies have the higest divorce rate, the more fundie the higher the divorce rate.

The statistics are in the link I gave in my last post.

[Tesha]

21. We worry more about our own marriages than everybody else's. (NT)

[SemperEadem]

5. that stands to reason

I'm amazed at how some people try to make deliberate stupidity an honorable pursuit.

[onehandle]

7. There have been multiple studies that smokers have lower IQs and were much less productive workers.

I wonder how that would go over at DU?

[Duppers]

14. true

Smokers Less Productive than Nonsmokers, Survey Finds

http://ehstoday.com/health/ehs_imp_39313/



This liberal atheistic, asthma ridden, ex-smoker despises smoky environments. ;)

:hide:

[Lorien]

20. You and me both Duppers nt

[Mojorabbit]

56. I quit approx 7 mos ago aafter 39 yrs of smoking

but I have a high IQ and was very very productive before being hit with MS. I take all these studies with a grain of salt. People are too complex to fit into boxes like this.

[northofdenali]

37. Not too well. I smoke, and know my IQ is up there.

Maybe not as high as when I was younger, tho :P!!

Actually, every work review I've ever had (and I've been working for almost 40 years) has indicated that I'm quite productive, indeed an overachiever. I think the lack of productivity meme is because we DO take breaks when we absolutely have to have a ciggy! But most of us make up for it, and don't linger.

[Aaria]

55. IQ aside, I had resently heard that smokers made more desirable

workers because even though they took their smoke breaks their production was above the non, and they died off sooner which ment less health care for the old ones and they didn't collect their retirement.

[skyounkin]

8. Stupid question

sexual exclusivity....that means straight...or does that mean gay...

Seriously.

[whosinpower]

11. Seriously?

I'll spell it out for ya.

It means one partner.

[skyounkin]

22. Ahhhh- LOL

I knew it meant exclusive (duh- exclusivity), but I thought it meant in the terms of sexuality- like gay, or straight. Not monogamy.

Thanx!

:silly:

[NoSheep]

80. I didn't understand it either. Maybe because I smoke? I am an atheist though. LOL.

:+

[Chef Eric]

13. I think it means monogamy. nt

[seabeyond]

61. you sleep around, dontcha.....

teasing

teasing teasing

[Arkana]

10. So stupid, right-wing Talibornagain men really ARE low IQ.

[certainot]

12. here's the answer!

my favorite 2 min you tube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85ILt3c3S8A

[NoSheep]

81. Thanks! That was really funny.

:7

[AlbertCat]

15. Now, if only we knew what IQ is actually a measure of ...

What is "sexual exclusivity"? Exclusively having sex? Sounds smart to me.

[Lorien]

16. Monogamy. nt

[Downwinder]

17. IQ = Language comprehension.

If you don't know the language, you will score low.

[Happy Friend]

60. I Wonder...

if you adjusted for looks, would the monogamy thing stay the same?

[marshall]

19. Kanazawa's theories on race and nationality are even more controversial

I suppose it is factored into this current study too, and in the past he has made fairly controversial statements that theorized from his findings that intelligence is also tied to race and nationality.

[depakid]

28. People might also want to recall that this is the guy wrote about nuking muslims

...seems to me that there is one resource that our enemies have in abundance but we don’t: hate. We don’t hate our enemies nearly as much as they hate us. They are consumed in pure and intense hatred of us, while we appear to have PC’ed hatred out of our lexicon and emotional repertoire. We are not even allowed to call our enemies for who they are, and must instead use euphemisms like “terrorists.” (As I explain elsewhere, we are not really fighting terrorists.) We may be losing this war because our enemies have a full range of human emotions while we don’t.

This has never been the case in our previous wars. We have always hated our enemies purely and intensely. They were “Japs,” they were “Krauts,” they were “Gooks.” And we didn’t think twice about dropping bombs on them, to kill them and their wives and children. (As many commentators have pointed out, the distinction between combatants and civilians does not make sense in World War III, and the Geneva Convention -- an agreement among nations -- is no longer applicable, because our enemies are not nation states.) Hatred of enemies has always been a proximate emotional motive for war throughout human evolutionary history. Until now.

Here’s a little thought experiment. Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter. What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost.

Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running. <referring to Hillary Clinton>

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war

[quaker bill]

23. it is always good to remember

that correlation does not necessarily impute causation. Two things can happen at once for a third reason that is not studied.

[Psephos]

24. The Bell Curve for politics.

People will believe anything that makes their in-group look good.

I will take a wild guess about the political identification of the authors.

[skyounkin]

25. As a liberal atheist-

I find this study to be very true!

:evilgrin:

[Psephos]

34. heh heh

An honest reply! ;)

(I am pretty close to you on the spectrum, btw.)

[tabasco]

27. Figures.

It seems you protest too much.

[Psephos]

33. You remind me of what Oscar Wilde said...

The only thing to do with good advice is pass it on. It is never any use to oneself.

:-D

[jmm]

43. Per the article their political identifications are-

Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."

Being the liberal agnostic I am I read the article ;-).

[Psephos]

45. lol you busted me ;) n/t

[MellowDem]

52. One is conservative...

the other a "strong libertarian".

[Psephos]

54. horse is already out of the barn

see previous post

looks like I demonstrated my own premise - that we must be vigilant against selection bias when politics are involved :)

[panzerfaust]

76. I would have too. We both would have been wrong

As is addressed in the article: Neither of the authors "... identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is 'a strong libertarian.'" {1}

"Strong libertarian" I would take to mean "Right Wing Nutter," but that may just be me.

That is the point of how science (even psychology) is supposed to work. Even if the findings do not support your view, you need to follow the data. I suspect that they would have been happier had being conservative sorted positively with being smart {2}.

Myself I am surprised that the gap was not larger.

My prejudice being that, though there are many and obvious exceptions, conservatives tend towards the "dumb as dirt" end of the spectrum, and that I can only look on in astonishment at people who actually believe that our species (especially the male) is the apex of creation by a superguy who poofed the universe into existence and who remains embedded in it watching every fall of a sparrow, every pitch of a baseball, and every time you try to look up the class hotties dress, so that He can add it up at the end - the end which He already knows at the very moment you are ensouled (whenever that may be) - and then either casts you into the burning fires (or freezing darkness - He is unclear even in the same chapter of His bestseller on which it is {3}) of Hell, or issues you wings and a harp - this all seems much easier to me to believe if you are not that fast off the mark.

------------
{1} BTW, misremembering this sentence is likely why I originally asserted that the study used self-identification of social views (as it does of religious ones.)

{2} Taking the popular view of conflating IQ with intelligence, and intelligence with "being smart."

{3} Matty (From God's True Version of the NT, quod vide)
3:12 "... He {superGuy} will throughly purge His floor, and gather His wheat into the garner; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."
8:12 "... the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

[Psephos]

82. good post :) n/t

[LeftishBrit]

86. Interestingly...

your wild guess about the political identification is probably wrong, though your wild guess about the religious identification is probably correct.

Kanazawa once suggested that Ann Coulter would be a rather good president for the USA!

[juxtaposed]

26. Well, at least I make up for my smoking at this end!!!!!!!!!

Last week it was said that people that smoke have a 4-6 point drop in IQ,? and also not being the first born I'm hitting bottom...

[Doctor_J]

29. I would bet that the Palinites are pretty dim on average

and the "conservative" men in Congress and the media are prodigious adulterers and also quite stupid. This tracks.

[northofdenali]

41. Oh, they are. Very, very dim.

It's absolutely amazing to listen to them, read their comments on local news stories, read their letters to the editor and the like. I've never seen more poorly thought out, misspelled, shrill missives anywhere else - except possibly in Free Republic postings.

The sweetie and I were out at a local lounge a few weeks before Nov. 4th and finally just left because a Palinista was so vulgar. We stopped and mentioned her antics to the owner (we went to high school with him) and he comped us for the entire evening, with apologies, and his sincere wish that Palin WOULD be elected - just to get her the HELL out of Alaska! Then we could just impeach her....

[NashVegas]

30. My Favorite Part: The Smugness Factor

Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.

[DuaneBidoux]

31. There are also two critical parts of the brain: limbic and cerebral, that play a role.

The limbic portion of the brain is deeper and more primitive, and many other animals have this part of the brain. It is the part of the brain that gives fight or flight and it was there in our ancestors long before we became speaking rational animals. It is the part of the brain that makes you strike out without thinking to protect yourself (It is the part that makes it impossible for you to keep your eyes open when a fist strikes out at you, even if you know that the fist is going to stop short of your face). And it functions that way on everybody regardless of political affiliation.

Then there is the cerebellum, the more recently evolved part of the brain (the part that looks all folded and wrinkled on the outside). This has evolved since humans started becoming rational thinkers. Ideally it rules over the limbic portion, but there is one critical problem: the limbic system gets the "threat" signals a few micro seconds before the cerebellum resulting in a very strong,almost Irresistible, impulse to strike out when one is afraid or threatened.

There is a great deal of evidence that more intelligent people, who tend to have more liberal habits, have allowed more of the cerebellum to control their actions--not that they don't have the primitive tendencies--we all have those. But, just like a child learning to control impulsive behavior they have learned to control emotionally aggressive behavior. I think of the Vulcan's, who actually do have emotions, but have leered to subsume them to rational thought.

[panzerfaust]

77. Point well made, but the cerebellum ("little brain" {no, not THAT one})

- that part of the brain which is dorsal to the brain stem, and which coordinates coordination - is being confused with the cerebrum (cerebral hemispheres) - the thinking part of the brain - which sits on top of everything else.






Liberal ................................................. Conservative

[undeterred]

35. So...is there a correlation between IQ and golf score?

:evilgrin:

[Incitatus]

36. Creationists are dumber than atheists. REALLY?

[FailureToCommunicate]

38. And news flash: Most scientists are Democrats. Something about reality based thinking...

[DuaneBidoux]

40. In fact most people with Ph D's are liberal. (that's the liberal elite).

Don't kid yourself. There is a liberal elite: they're called educated people.

[anonymous171]

68. They are also the least effective part of the Liberal coalition as well. nt

[DuaneBidoux]

44. I'm not sure that most scientists lately would call themselves Democrats.

Most are progressive, but their frustration is tending to be as intense as ours here at DU.

[FailureToCommunicate]

46. Well, there may be scientists here at DU also. I meant registered (D) or voting (D)

[dyingnumbers]

39. Don't jump to conclusions.

Funny to know that experts are advising against generating stereotypes from biased data, e.g. The Bell Curve.

[DuaneBidoux]

42. Liberals want to make the circle called "we" bigger. Conservatives want to make the circle smaller.

It is very elegant and simple and it has a profound feel of truth.

[alp227]

47. PZ Myers is skeptical of this

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_yourselves_on_the.php

After all IQ isn't that accurate of a measure, isn't it?

[bananas]

64. LOL - PZ Myers: "freakishly fact-free evolutionary psychology"

Thanks for that link!
Posted into threads in the Science forum and the Religion/Theology forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=63486&mesg_id=63572
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=237355&mesg_id=237513

[Billsmile]

48. I Think This Study Is Crap.

What this study is really measuring is those who conform vs. those who don't.

Those who don't conform with the norm, for a variety of natural reasons, have had (because of the cultural norms) to think things out much more than their counterparts for whom life has been a breeze.

The act of thinking (words/concepts debated in one's mind), in itself, produces results that likely test well for I.Q.

How we fit into society largely determines the level of usage of our intellectual tools.

The authors of this study aren't considering the full dynamic of their subject matter.

[DuaneBidoux]

50. This study may well be crap, but there are many others hinting at the same things.

Part of this is because the essence of science and rationality is open inquiry and change whereas the essence of conservatism is statism and lack of movement (con=against and pro=for). There have been many studies pointing to the fact that conservatives have a tendency to be authoritarian personalities and authoritarian personalities tend to be more closed off from change and new experience. Change and new experience is the essence of creative endeavors like science, art, filmaking, and all the other creative crafts where one sees a tendency toward liberalism.

This one study may well be crap, but there is an extensive literature from psychology and sociology that is now fairly strongly pointing to this general tendency.

[Festivito]

69. +1 Agree. Well reasoned and expressed.

Of course people who are more challenged develop more mindfulness, especially for atheism, liberalism and homosexuality which require persons to out-think the people who would make their actions difficult. They exercise more.

A friend when I was young was blind, his hearing was amazing. He exercised his listening skills because he needed them more. Easy to understand.

[crim son]

49. I knew this.

:evilgrin:

[johnnie]

51. We didn't need this study

Ever see an IQ thread here at DU? 95% or so of the posters always claim they have 140+ IQs..lol

[AlienGirl]

74. That could point to selection bias: you get the same thing on the Triple Nine mailing list!

Seriously, everyone on the Triple Nine list claim high IQs--above 150, in fact!

Tucker

[Ian David]

53. Kicked, rec'd, bookmarked and tweeted. n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

57. This is a duplicate

I posted this here on Wednesday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7787156

[Wabbajack_]

58. "none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors"

What? Atheism would have been of great benefit. Less time wasted worshiping the sun and the killing in the name of Gods.

[anonymous171]

67. Religious wars are a fairly recent phenomena

[panzerfaust]

78. Depends upon your definiton of "recent"

since much of the Bible (The "Old Testament") is taken up with the Children of Israel destroying various peoples because their god told them to do so as he had promised them the land of those who worshiped false gods (a tautology, surely).

[progressoid]

59. As an Atheist, Liberal, sexually exclusive male,

I find this study to be just chock full of crap.

[Political Heretic]

70. This anti-theist, left, sexually exclusive male thinks studies like this are steaming piles.

At the very least, taking the findings of a single study and waving them around is pretty lame.

Something as complicated as trying to find a direct connection between religious beliefs or lack thereof, politics, and monogamy with filtering out every possible variable and contextual reality that could skew the data certainly is going to require scores more studies....

Not that I think we should be wasting time or money on that.

[kestrel91316]

62. Well my liberal, atheist, genius BF in college wasn't sexually exclusive

the last year of our 5-yr relationship. He must not have got the memo.

[seabeyond]

63. just think how smart he could have been, lol. nt

[KonaKane]

65. "the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people"

This is what I hate about "reports" like this. They are usually a pretext for the next round of supremist bashing.

[UrbScotty]

66. Well, two out of three ain't bad!

I have known some smart Christians (i.e., my family - whether I'm a genius is up for debate :rofl: ).

But yeah, I've found liberals to be pretty smart!

And I'm pretty sexually exclusive as well - I don't do that with ANYBODY!

[Divine Discontent]

72. ha! me either (sex), but,

I've tested as high as 159 on IQ, but I'm also a Christian - and oh my - Gay! I'm not allowed in the study! LOL

But I loved your last line! Thinks for the laugh on a kinda scary morning (earthquake/tsunami).

[mwb970]

71. In a related story, water is wet.

Do we actually need to be told that progressive people tend to be smarter than right-wingers? We can see the quality of the people they look up to. We can read their posts on right-wing boards. We can read their letters in our local papers. We encounter them in our daily lives.

I'm kind of a humorous guy, with a dry, ironic wit. The folks who "just don't get it" (giving me a confused, "Wha?" kind of look as others laugh) invariably turn out to be conservatives.

As far as I can tell, conservatives tend to take what they hear at face value and miss any nuance of meaning (the essence of humor). They see surfaces but not substance. Their thinking is purely black and white. These are not characteristics I associate with intelligence.

[gaspee]

73. Atheist, Socialist, gay

Last time I had my IQ measured (in school) it was 140. I feel a lot dumber now (just turned 40) than I did when I was 20 - I don't grasp new concepts as quickly and I don't have a perfect memory anymore. Still better than most. Don't know if it was the drugs, alcohol or normal brain aging.

Have been a left-wing atheist since I was a child - told my parents at 7 years old that the entire concept of god is just silly and haven't changed my mind since.

[mainer]

79. Unfortunately, they don't reproduce as much.

It's the religious conservatives who seem to be passing their genes on to more babies. It's almost as if high intelligence and sexual exclusivity are evolutionary disadvantages.

No wonder the Christians believe in "be fruitful and multiply."

[LeftishBrit]

83. As a left-wing atheist, I still consider Kanazawa pretty dodgy

He is one of those gung-ho evolutionary psychologists, who think that practically every item of behaviour must be (a) genetically controlled and (b) have a direct evolutionary explanation.

He has some strange views on race:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/highereducation.research

and on war:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200803/why-we-are-losing-war


I would say that it probably is true that in many places liberals and atheists have higher IQs, but not for any evolutionary reason, but because liberalism and atheism tend to be associated with higher levels of education, both in the formal sense, and in the sense of greater exposure to and conversation with people with a wide variety of viewpoints and experiences. And IQ is associated, probably both as cause and effect, with level of education.

[buckrogers1965]

85. One of the problems of smart people...

is that they tend to be able to see every side of an issue and are willing to compromise.

Those with less intelligence can only see the side they choose to see and are not willing to compromise at all.

This singlemindness of purpose and ability to march lock step with each other tends to allow the less smart to overwhelm the smart politically.

It would be very difficult to dictate one policy to a room full of very smart people without there being more opinions than people present about what should be done.

I am conservative, atheist, monogamous, and very very smart. ;)