Has there ever been a study of Republican IQs vs Democrat IQs?

[Cyrano]

I have a personal bias that leads me to believe that most Republicans are less intelligent than most Dems. But that bias is nothing more than my uniformed opinion.

I'd really like to know if any reputable organization has ever conducted such a study. And if so, I'd be fascinated to see the results.

I'd also be interested in hearing your personal opinion.

[Ian David]

1. Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

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.
Advertisement

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.

"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."

More:
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH

[Cyrano]

5. Thank you, Ian David.You've provided some food for thought.

[roakes10190]

8. liberal vs. conservative

I have a feeling that political affiliation has more to do with education than with IQ; however, IQ may be related to education and the type of college education one has and whether the college is basically liberal. I was probably leaning liberal before but my proclivity increased while I was in college.

[JustinL]

14. the author of that study also contends that life expectancy is linked to IQ

Wilkinson contends that economic inequality reduces the health and life expectancy of
the whole population but his argument does not make sense within its own evolutionary
framework. Recent evolutionary psychological theory suggests that the human brain,
adapted to the ancestral environment, has difficulty comprehending and dealing with
entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment and that general
intelligence evolved as a domain-specific adaptation to solve evolutionarily novel
problems. Since most dangers to health in the contemporary society are evolutionarily
novel, it follows that more intelligent individuals are better able to recognize and deal
with such dangers and live longer. Consistent with the theory, the macro-level analyses
show that income inequality and economic development have no effect on life
expectancy at birth, infant mortality and age-specific mortality net of average intelligence
quotient (IQ) in 126 countries. They also show that an average IQ has a very large and
significant effect on population health but not in the evolutionarily familiar sub-Saharan
Africa. At the micro level, the General Social Survey data show that, while both income
and intelligence have independent positive effects on self-reported health, intelligence
has a stronger effect than income. The data collectively suggest that individuals in
wealthier and more egalitarian societies live longer and stay healthier, not because they
are wealthier or more egalitarian but because they are more intelligent.

http://ww.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/BJHP2006.pdf

[Ian David]

17. That kind of makes sense, too. n/t

[JustinL]

38. so white people live longer than brown people because they're just smarter?

Did you notice that the national IQ data in the paper is taken from a book co-written by notorious racist Richard Lynn?

[Ian David]

41. THAT I missed. n/t

[JustinL]

37. self-delete

replied to wrong post

[Uncle Joe]

19. I disagree with the premise in this study.

For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.

Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger.

An intelligent early boy; may have developed empathy watching the elders; in his tribe and the results of their behaviour on their offspring and as this boy grew in to an intelligent man; he may have come to the realization that sexual exclusivity would lead to stronger, more intelligent and successful offspring than the shot gun approach; whereby he would be spreading his fathering/hunting skills thin among many.

[deaniac21]

30. Men, regardless of IQ, aren't very smart when the pecker is

doing the thinking. They are looking for pleasure and care not about the consequences.

[Uncle Joe]

45. I agree it's an exceptionally strong urge, but all men don't

let their pecker do the thinking.

I don't believe intelligence to be the same as awareness especially today, it can be about a specific, ie; numbers, but I believe in those days intelligence would have been closely aligned to awareness; both environmental and social for survival sake and this could/would have a dampening effect.

There are some animals; other than humans that mate for life, so I don't view sexual exclusivity as being a lock against the "spreading of the genes" evolutionary goal.

[Egalitariat]

44. What is sexual exclusivity?

[Uncle Joe]

46. Being committed to one mate instead of

"spreading your genes," aka; fathering offspring through multiple mates.

[Egalitariat]

50. Do you think that will replace monogamy in the lexicon?

[Uncle Joe]

51. I believe that's a strong probability but monogamy generally refers

to marriage in the case of humans and committed to one mate in the case of other animals.

I suppose early humans fall in to a gray area and that's why they refer to it as "sexual exclusivity."

[Codeine]

2. I've known some very smart Republicans and some incredibly stupid

Democrats, so something tells me intelligence isn't related to politics.

[valerief]

3. As long as voter IQs are low, it doesn't matter. nt

[Mass]

4. IQ is overrated as a measure of intelligence.

In addition, some people can be very intelligent and incredibly heartless. Some people may be less intelligent and have a lot of empathy.

[Cyrano]

6. I can't disagree with you on that, Mass.

[EFerrari]

10. I was thinking the same thing. However, iirc,

in other studies liberals have also tested out better educated and more empathetic.

[Upton]

7. Yep...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

[NightWatcher]

9. we're also better lovers.... whoever heard of a good piece of elephant

of course more liberals/progressives accept science, so....

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bitwit1234]

12. Some one did do a study similar to IQ

it seemed that the republicans were a group of people who had weak minds that led to them being easily influenced by a leader. A leader who could talk them into following them even over a cliff. In their defense, the study said that republicans didn't make lemmings, it was just that with the brainless policies they had people like that just gravitated toward the party.

Democrats had more style and were a group of people who thought for themselves.

[slackmaster]

13. The Milgram Study proved that acquiescence to perceived authority occurs in people of all stripes

The intent was to see if Germans were more prone to that than others.

Consider your own tribe to be immune at your own risk.

[pscot]

16. From The Milgram 37

to Auschwitz.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. "immune" and "less vulnerable" are not the same thing.

People disinclined to defer to authority tend to be more liberal.

I know I would have not complied with the milgram experiment.

[slackmaster]

20. I disagree. I see liberals kowtowing to authority figures all the time.

Perhaps you are thinking of "classical liberals" a.k.a. people with libertarian leanings.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Deference to authority is a fundamental tenet of conservatism. n/t

[slackmaster]

28. I think of rugged independence as a fundamental tenet of conservatism

As in "You're on your own". Conservatives are certainly not OK with authority figures doing things like taking their wealth for redistribution, or levying taxes to provide for a societal safety net.

[Fumesucker]

39. Conservatives have no problem with politicians taking their money

In order to kill, hurt or imprison people they don't like, be they brown or liberal.

[LanternWaste]

34. I do tend to keep off the grass when the sign reads as such...

I do tend to keep off the grass, and never annoy the zoo primates when the signs read as such. Sigh.

[Marr]

47. Read Robert Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians". Authoritarians can be found on either side of

the political spectrum, and are split into two basic groups: authoritarian followers (which are by far the more common) and authoritarian leaders. The followers tend to have low cognitive skills and don't deal well with logic or ambiguity.

They tend to call an argument valid if it supports their belief, regardless of whether it's a sound argument or not. For instance, you can say something like, 'most cacti are green, therefore Mexican immigrants are committing high rates of crime', and they will call it a valid argument.

Authoritarian leaders are cynical. They don't have any real convictions beyond their lust for power, and will sell anyone out without a second thought.

Altemeyer says authoritarian followers are, in the United States, almost always found on the right side of the political spectrum, but it's more about adhering to established authority than any right/left political ideal. In an authoritarian Communist state, for example, these types will be the Party's most faithful adherents.

[proteus_lives]

15. So, this is about ego-stroking?

[slackmaster]

21. Yes, I think it's an attempt at a group narcissism thread

:nuke:

[proteus_lives]

23. Yep.

[surrealAmerican]

22. What you are observing is most likely "willful ignorance" ...

... which does not necessarily imply a lower IQ.

[Populist_Prole]

24. Willful ignorance for sure, mostly ego driven

It can render smart people quite stupid. I know someone who has much higher than average intelligence ( never fails to brag about his 160 IQ whenever he gets a few drinks in him ) but his ego sometimes gets the best of him. It's like since he "knows" he's smarter than most, automatically assumes he MUST be right when arguing with somebody over a subject/issue. Though great at figuring out math problems in his head being resourceful in solving practical mechanical issues, I've seen him cling to some incredibly illogical, even bizarre positions or conclusions because he just can't see things any other way than what he wants.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. Pugs are more intelligent on average. Don't over-rely on intelligence.

Assuming that you believe there is such a thing as a difference in intelligence between two persons (as implied by the question) then Republicans are going to come out ahead in aggregate.

If that seems controversial, consider the alternative... it should be equally controversial the other way around.

Since IQ correlates solidly with socio-economic class of course we'd lose that measure, despite our over-proportion of geniuses.

But who cares? I don't favor limiting voting based on IQ tests so it doesn't much matter.

You will find that believing false things, hostility toward other humans and being dishonest are not the sole province of the unintelligent.

[slackmaster]

29. I like pugs.

I'm much more of a cat person, but I think I could get along with pugs.

[proteus_lives]

32. Adorable.

[Gaedel]

33. Sounds about right

I would think that Democrats would be over-represented at both the top and the bottom of the intelligence curve with Republicans over-represented in the middle.

[11 Bravo]

26. The rise of Palin and Beck has brought fractions into the calculus.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Democrats are demonstrably smarter than Republicans, hands down.

Regardless of how they actually perform on IQ tests.

[LanternWaste]

35. I'm afraid I may wind up ruining the curve...

I'm afraid I may wind up ruining the curve as my own IQ is quite a bit smaller than many people's shoe sizes.


In my own circle of friends, "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average," but most of them are a-political-- looking on those of us who follow political news as though we are a breed of mutated lab mice gone bad. I'm not entirely sure they're wrong.

ed: spelling-- due to my low intelligence (you may also blame it on public schools if you so wish)

[stuntcat]

42. blame it on public schools"

yep, I'm THE bad example of public schools! Also I'll admit I'm missing some screws, but I can feel in my gut how wrong the conservatives are on some downright moral big issues.


While ago I heard someone on NPR say that tea party members are very well educated people.
Well I do not get that from the interviews and pictures I've seen. No that is definitely not the impression I've gotten. And I've seen a lot, lots of crowd shots, interviews, signs.. I've seen their favorite leaders speak. I've seen how they don't understand the Constitution, or the fact that govt. spending all their money started under their favorite president, W. Bush. (yeah, NOW they say they're anti-government :eyes:) They can't stand "Obama Care" even though poor and very sick people were having their lives ruined just caring for themselves.

Oh I could go on all day, it just blew my mind while ago to hear someone telling how well educated the tea party members are :scared: This kind of thing is why I'm afraid of people.

[zeos3]

36. Here's a list of articles...

...that your post inspired me to look up. Thanks for bringing up the topic.

Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

"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."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives


Here's the response to the above article.

Conservatism: Thought Disorder in Need of a Cure

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ironshrink/201004/conservatism-thought-disorder-in-need-cure



Conservatism Linked to Lack of Education

"A recently released study showed that people at the end of college are more liberal than people starting college. And it also showed that students at the end were not necessarily more knowledgable about government and civics issues."

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201002/conservatism-linked-lack-education


There are quite a few articles related to the subject but I'll finish with this one because I don't think a study was needed to reach this conclusion.

Conservatives lack sense of humor, study finds

"Moreover, the authors of the study in question also made sure to check whether the two groups thought Colbert is funny (i.e., regardless of how they interpret the comedian’s political leanings). There was no statistical difference in that case, implying that while liberals were laughing at the irony, conservatives were laughing at what they thought was a heartfelt description of the state of the world on Colbert’s part. One would be led to infer a certain degree of meanness on the part of the conservative viewers, which perhaps has something to do with the results of another recent study, showing that people who go to church more often (usually, conservative evangelical Christians) are much more likely to support torture of suspected terrorists. But that’s another, much less funny, story which I’ll leave for another time."


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rationally-speaking/200905/conservatives-lack-sense-humor-study-finds

[Cyrano]

49. Thanks, zeos3. Good stuff.

[Fumesucker]

40. Check the grammar and spelling on conservative boards versus liberal ones..

Now grammar and spelling may not be iron clad indicators of intelligence but they are better than many.

[Panaconda]

43. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from this

Even if it's true IQ is a very narrow measure of intelligence.

I would hazard a guess that the average peasant in Mexico has a much lower IQ than the over-educated American liberal yet has a much higher level of political conscience.

But I guess if we want to feel superior we can tell ourselves how smart we are.

[Moondog]

48. Meh. They still get to vote .... n/t