Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ.

[Cato]

:rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html

[Crux]

Atheism I can somewhat understand, but liberalism ? I'm sure that true geniuses condone with any -ism.

[Groenewolf]

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.

Liberalism, that would depend on how you define it. But considering this is an American article I will presume they mean the conventional American meaning of social-democracy combined with social-liberalism (where the everyone is equal thinking goes to the extreme). In that case one can wonder how smart that is. Unless once keep in place laws that protect there wealth (smart people have a higher earning potential) and somehow can prevent their children of being send to dumbed schools one can ask how smart it is to be an American Liberal. Not to mention that in states that went even further highly intelligent people run a very high risk of being executed or just locked up for forced intellectual labor :rolleyes: .

But to call it unconventional is a bit unconventional. Probably the reason for the "". Since this it is something that forms a dominant part of the political culture of the so named West for since at least the French Revolution.


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.

A bit simplistic view of the function of religion, I have to say. :rolleyes2:


Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.

So long as you do not question the basic beliefs of modern atheism. Namely there is only the material word and it is utterly profane.


Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.

:thumbs up Good to hear.


The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.

Considering the fact that cultural Marxism has thoroughly infiltrated our universities and had become very successful in making their views dominant, should these results come over as surprising?


This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.

Then why are not more highly intelligent people ethnic nationalist, to name a unconventional preference. So many are more in the socially accepted unconventional preferences that one can ask the question are they really going for something that is an unconventional preference. ;)

[The Black Prince]

The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.
Considering the fact that cultural Marxism has thoroughly infiltrated our universities and had become very successful in making their views dominant, should these results come over as surprising?

I fully agree with you here. However not all is lost, considering that most of these still 'young and dumb adolescents' one day will own a house and a good job, or their own company, making a lot of them lose most of their left sympathies.

[skyhawk]

I fully agree with you here. However not all is lost, considering that most of these still 'young and dumb adolescents' one day will own a house and a good job, or their own company, making a lot of them lose most of their left sympathies.

I disagree with you here Black Prince...........people have to work within the system that prevails.......in our case here in the West that system is capitalism.

Even people who are successful within that system can and do still retain a fair degree of their " left sympathies "..........support for universal healthcare being as good of an example as any.

A system that puts profit before people will always have a great deal of people who will find the excesses of that system hard to accept regardless of how they have fared in it themselves

[The Black Prince]

Even people who are successful within that system can and do still retain a fair degree of their " left sympathies "..........support for universal healthcare being as good of an example as any.

Hehe.. when I wrote 'left sympathies' I didn't mean universal healthcare.;)
Though such practice might be seen as 'left' or even very left in some countries, healthcare can also be a typical point of political more right party's.


people have to work within the system that prevails.......in our case here in the West that system is capitalism.
Though I don't like the excesses of our Western society. I think that every system, wether political, economic or social in the end always has to adhere to certain laws of nature. In this case the free market. The higher the demand, while the supply stays the same, it will cause that prices rise. And if the demand lowers the price goes down if the supply stays the same.

Even communism can not control this law of nature, oh artificially they can keep it up for a while, but sooner or later they will have to face their costs vs profit balance.

However this is in reverse is also a weakness in our Western consuming dependant economy. If fully capitalist it will always tend to go for the short term profit. The long term consequences are to often forgotten. Earlier I already shared my views on this weakness in our Western form of capitalism, using as example the foodmarket.

[skyhawk]

Hehe.. when I wrote 'left sympathies' I didn't mean universal healthcare.;)
Though such practice might be seen as 'left' or even very left in some countries, healthcare can also be a typical point of political more right party's.

Left sympathies as I see them Black Prince refer to a reversal of sorts in the capitalist promotion of the doctrine .........forget all but self. That can manifest itself in many forms....a provision for universal healthcare being just one......but I could have just as easily said a general support for safety nets to protect society and its people from the excesses of the capitalist system with regard to unemployment or unforseen illness or injury.
I think many people support such provisions regardless of how well they are doing themselves..........which when you think about it could change for themselves too in the blink of an eye



Though I don't like the excesses of our Western society. I think that every system, wether political, economic or social in the end always has to adhere to certain laws of nature.

I don't like them either BP but think that our nature will , in no small part , reflect the socio-economic system that is prevalent and all encompassing
In nature we respond/adapt to the environment we inhabit........we have the capacity to think just of and for ourselves but we also have the capacity to realize that their are as many benefits to be had in cooperation.............we wouldn't have survived the Sabre Toothed Tiger period otherwise :D and I think that whatever system holds sway will determine which side of our nature will be promoted at the expense of the other.
To me there is no surprise in the death of the community spirit in capitalist societies and the widespread depression that that tends to lead to..... of which the false therapy of crass consumerism is a symptom imho



However this is in reverse is also a weakness in our Western consuming dependant economy. If fully capitalist it will always tend to go for the short term profit. The long term consequences are to often forgotten. Earlier I already shared my views on this weakness in our Western form of capitalism, using as example the foodmarket.

I agree with you Black Prince............so if communism is a bridge too far , which I believe it is now ( it might have been different had the European nations/powers adopted it all those years ago and initiated an international socialist based system) the next best thing is trying to restrict the rapaciousness of unbridled capitalism. Which comprise of the safety nets we have mentioned...........and I think many people realize that and do support them regardless of how well they are doing themselves .

I'm sorry if I have rattled on here BP..........I am still a self conscious newbie and as a self confessed Leftie I always bite on these issues ;)........so will not try to narrow this thread into a capitalism v socialism event............it is far more than that and others may well wish to comment on the other subjects it raises.

best wishes :)

[SwordoftheVistula]

Good article, makes sense. Matches with my theory on why gays have higher IQs, that a higher IQ makes one more likely/able to override natural instinct.

[nisse]

I'm sure that true geniuses condone with any -ism.

Agreed. They are talking about "just above average" not "genius", though. I think that considering the fairly small difference and the concerns that IQ tests are culturally biased brings these findings into question.

"Atheist, liberal, single partner" just sounds like "middle class" to me :shrug:..where's the revolutionary finding in that? :rolleyes2:

[Poltergeist]

Let the IQ worshippers squabble over such trivialities.