Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

[Sparrow]

(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.
"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."
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.
The study looked at a large sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which began with adolescents in grades 7-12 in the United States during the 1994-95 school year. The participants were interviewed as 18- to 28-year-olds from 2001 to 2002. The study also looked at the General Social Survey, another cross-national data collection source.
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.
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.
"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.
Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said.
"Historically, anything that's new and different can be seen as a threat in terms of the religious beliefs; almost all religious systems are about permanence," he noted.
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. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.
"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.
Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.
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.
It also makes sense that "conservatism" as a worldview of keeping things stable would be a safer approach than venturing toward the unfamiliar, Bailey said.
Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."
Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. 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.
None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said.
"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.

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

Interesting stuff. Thoughts?

I'm a liberal and atheist. Lolz. I think most INTPs are as well.

 

[Vatroslav]

I can't categorize myself at all, and I do not feel the need... see, 'conservative', 'liberal', 'atheistic', 'theistic', are all only artificial construction. Why should I identify myself as any of those? Why should I be bonded by any kind of categorization, it should never lose its flexibility, and by categorization it does.

Others could try to categorize me, but can never grasp myself into the whole, and stick a piece of paper on me... then closing their eyes to everything else I am...

 

[amorfati]

^^^^^^

I hear ya man.

I used to identify myself as an atheist, agnostic, nihilist, pacifist, INTP, etc. and all I was doing was putting myself in more chains.

I don't regret it or anything. I was seeking truth and I needed a word to identify myself with at every different stage in my search because without it I wouldn't have any identity, but eventually it came time for me to liberate myself from all those crazy categories and just exist as I am.

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

I feel like those numbers aren't even something to get worked up about! Like.... what? It's only guys 18-24, so it doesn't tell us anything about LIFETIME sexual exclusivity. Maybe those smart guys haven't learned how to be playas yet.

Moreover, the liberal & atheism vs. IQ is kinda stupid. The Atheism difference is only 3 points +/-. Yes, smarter people are more likely not to believe in a God. But I don't think that belief in God is the shackle holding people back. I think that someone with high intelligence is going to function well no matter what beliefs they have. Or something.

 

[shoeless]

ugh.

1) IQ is a flawed measure of intelligence by default.
2) correlation =/= causation.
3) there are other factors in play here. i'll admit i didn't read the entire article, just sorta skimmed it, but i'm willing to bet they didn't take much of that into consideration.
4) like RT said, it's not a good sample.
5) more propaganda to make people think religious people are dumb and liberals are awesome.

and this is coming from a socially-liberal politically-independent agnostic INTP. just saying.

but hey, if you enjoy this, this chart will probably tickle your fancy: http://i.imgur.com/kpb5A.png

but me, personally, i prefer this one: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v484/godefridus/kpb5A-2.png

 

[NeverAmI]

You are only smart if you believe ______.

Sounds like an agenda to me.

 

[Himself]

Just to play devil's advocate to shoeless' skepticism (as a fellow self-identified social liberal and political independent), I'll provide some snippets from a couple of interesting finds I came across today:

Why it matters if liberals are much smarter : Gene Expression:

All this might be problematic if you don't believe in IQ or intelligence. But that's fine. Just replace the term with something more palatable, like "learnability" or "life effort" or "ability to take a test." It still remains true that those with higher measured whatever-you-want-to-call-it sound a lot less dull than those who have a lower measured whatever-you-want-to-call-it. They also make more money, are less religious, more liberal, and less fertile, than those who have less developed test-taking skills or whatever.

Intelligence, politics & religion : Gene Expression (follow-up to the previous post):

Correlation is not transitive and Kanazawa measured verbal intelligence. Correlation is not necessarily transitive. But it might be, and in any case, as I suggest above I wasn't too concerned with being psychometrically precise here in terms of g. Additionally, caution in this case is modulated by other results which point in the same direction.

Epiphenom: Is this why atheists are, on average, more intelligent?:

Firstly, although there are many different aspects to intelligence (and intelligence tests), there really is such a thing as 'general intelligence'. People who score highly on one test will tend to score highly on others. That's statistically provable, and the only explanation is that there is some aspect of brain function that enables you to be generally good at tests of intelligence. Of course, there's a lot more to being a smart individual than general intelligence, but general intelligence is a real, measurable thing.

What is true is that the IQ test does not measure general intelligence (no test does, by definition). However, it does provide a good approximation. And in fact, Kanazawa's study does not use IQ tests, but other tests that are also related to general intelligence.

 

[Renk Fasze]

I can see how that thought could be reached but i can't say i, personally, could put any weight in it.

I disagree. That was very vague. I can see how that that thought could be reached but it seems like a very human attempt and putting ourselves on a pedestal.

Besides its mass media. Can't be taken at face value. Analyze it. Truth mixed with structured lies is very easy to accept as truth. Especially with all that make-up and those ever so cheesy smiles.

 

[Geminii]

Maybe those smart guys haven't learned how to be playas yet.

Or just aren't getting laid.

 

[echoplex]

It would seem that if atheism became the norm, the 'smart' people would be the ones more open to the possibility of a god, with others stubbornly asserting there is no god. This is assuming the correlation is strictly due to resisting the tendency to go along with the ready-made concepts of the majority -- and not a biological tendency to specifically believe in a supreme being. I'm really not sure which tendency is strongest: the tendency to go with the flow, or the tendency to believe for believing's sake.

Either way, the idea here seems to be that intelligent people are more likely to resist their own impulses, or that those very impulses are simply weaker or less consistent. We may also say that intelligent people have less fun. I'm not sure.

Also, if someone was born into an atheist, liberal family with a prevailing tradition of focusing on marriage, would the correlation be that such a person is likely to be less intelligent? Or would we assume that their entire family was of superior intelligence, thus explaining their culture?

Generally, it's the assumptions people make that interest me more than the study itself. It's interesting to see where people go with these kinds of things. Of course, it's highly unlikely people would use it to justify their own lifestyle. That would be unheard of.

 

[Geminii]

It would seem that if atheism became the norm, the 'smart' people would be the ones more open to the possibility of a god

I'd contend that there would have to be some fairly convincing evidence in the face of Occam's Razor.

Smart people today don't generally contend that the sun is green and the ocean orange, even though the masses insist it's not.

 

[NeverAmI]

I'd contend that there would have to be some fairly convincing evidence in the face of Occam's Razor.

Smart people today don't generally contend that the sun is green and the ocean orange, even though the masses insist it's not.

Technically neither actually "are" a color, they are just classified as a color by our perception. There isn't really anyway to compare your blue to my blue, we can only say that it is a perceived as a certain color to us personally and it is consistently perceived that way in contrast to other perceived colors.

As for the color of an object, we can say that different types of matter consistently scatter/absorb various wavelengths of the light sources emitted spectrum.

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

 

[echoplex]

Smart people today don't generally contend that the sun is green and the ocean orange, even though the masses insist it's not.

True, but what seemed to be implied from the study was that intelligence (as per IQ) is associated with going against the intellectually 'easy' path. I was suggesting that perhaps the easy path is simply to believe what those around you believe (though some would suggest it's always easiest to believe, regardless of cultural trends). Thus, if that's true, you would assume that in an atheist culture, the 'smart' ones would be at least more considerate of belief.

But I put 'smart' in quotes for a reason. I don't think IQ is a good enough measurement of intelligence, but furthermore, I think plenty of truly intelligent people (imo at least) still have a tendency to identify themselves as 'open-minded' and are often more likely to go against prevailing norms. They may think "I'm smart, so I need to open my mind, there could be a god after all" while everyone has already packed it in. These people tend to have higher IQs, but are still prone to the human tendency to follow their identity. Perhaps not so 'smart' after all. (read: even smart people are dumb sometimes)

However, intelligent people tend to be a step ahead of the majority in the way they think. Perhaps one could say the 'god timeline' goes something like fear > definitely a god > science > maybe no god > science gains acceptance > definitely no god > or maybe there is, we can't know > we need a new approach

Perhaps while most people are 'stuck' on 'definitely no god', the more intelligent people are approaching the subject in ways never done before. This would, in some cases, make them appear more theistic than the atheist majority. Maybe absolute atheism is not the end of the line.

 

[walfin]

But I put 'smart' in quotes for a reason. I don't think IQ is a good enough measurement of intelligence, but furthermore, I think plenty of truly intelligent people (imo at least) still have a tendency to identify themselves as 'open-minded' and are often more likely to go against prevailing norms. They may think "I'm smart, so I need to open my mind, there could be a god after all" while everyone has already packed it in. These people tend to have higher IQs, but are still prone to the human tendency to follow their identity. Perhaps not so 'smart' after all. (read: even smart people are dumb sometimes)

The difference is that the smart know or at least have a reasonably good inkling of when they're being dumb.

I guess the smart are a lot more consistent - society generally is not.

Not that I make any claims to being intelligent, whatever that means.

The rest of the non-smart individuals can always take comfort that "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty" (while the smart rejoice that they have something to confound them and occupy their time).

 

[merzbau]

sounds pretty unconvincing to me. there is no way of representing intelligence as an abstract number, so any attempt to link iq score to political/sexual/etc preference is meaningless. you may as well correlate personal preferences with sudoku scores.

my eyebrow also raised at the argument that a conservative lifestyle is more likely to be an evolutionary benefit than a progressive one. i thought adaptation would have been better than "keeping things stable". or did i miss something?

 

[Geminii]

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

*laughs*

No, no, that's more than fair. I pretty much set myself up for that one, didn't I?

 

[Juno]

Oh boy, another bullshit article coming from CNN...

 

[Philosophyking87]

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

Interesting stuff. Thoughts?

I'm a liberal and atheist. Lolz. I think most INTPs are as well.

I definitely fit the bill. I'm a pretty radical atheist liberal.

 

[onthewindowstand]

True, but what seemed to be implied from the study was that intelligence (as per IQ) is associated with going against the intellectually 'easy' path. I was suggesting that perhaps the easy path is simply to believe what those around you believe (though some would suggest it's always easiest to believe, regardless of cultural trends). Thus, if that's true, you would assume that in an atheist culture, the 'smart' ones would be at least more considerate of belief.

But I put 'smart' in quotes for a reason. I don't think IQ is a good enough measurement of intelligence, but furthermore, I think plenty of truly intelligent people (imo at least) still have a tendency to identify themselves as 'open-minded' and are often more likely to go against prevailing norms. They may think "I'm smart, so I need to open my mind, there could be a god after all" while everyone has already packed it in. These people tend to have higher IQs, but are still prone to the human tendency to follow their identity. Perhaps not so 'smart' after all. (read: even smart people are dumb sometimes)

However, intelligent people tend to be a step ahead of the majority in the way they think. Perhaps one could say the 'god timeline' goes something like fear > definitely a god > science > maybe no god > science gains acceptance > definitely no god > or maybe there is, we can't know > we need a new approach

Perhaps while most people are 'stuck' on 'definitely no god', the more intelligent people are approaching the subject in ways never done before. This would, in some cases, make them appear more theistic than the atheist majority. Maybe absolute atheism is not the end of the line.

The problem is that you see belief as being remotely close to a intellectually honest position. I assume that you think belief isn't as absurd as believing that the sun is green, well sorry but it is.

 

[Philosophyking87]

It would seem that if atheism became the norm, the 'smart' people would be the ones more open to the possibility of a god, with others stubbornly asserting there is no god.

Sorry, but that's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read (or at least it's climbing the charts fast). It's a huge misconception that people are atheists to "not fit in" and "be different." Anyone who suggest otherwise is obviously full of shit. In fact, I think these evolutionary psychologists are full of shit, too. We aren't atheists because we're somehow "advancing the species." We're just generally higher than average intelligence persons who can't help but apply logic to the world. Hence, atheism. I think people are reading into things a bit too much.

If everyone were atheists, intelligent people would be happy.
It's as simple as that. If everyone were atheists, intelligent people wouldn't lose their sense of logic overnight in some retarded need to be different.

lol. Absolutely ridiculous; absolutely poor reasoning. Good day.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I'd contend that there would have to be some fairly convincing evidence in the face of Occam's Razor.

Smart people today don't generally contend that the sun is green and the ocean orange, even though the masses insist it's not.

Exactly. Your brain just doesn't fall out of your head just because the common person tends to believe something reasonable every now and then.

 

[Philosophyking87]

True, but what seemed to be implied from the study was that intelligence (as per IQ) is associated with going against the intellectually 'easy' path. I was suggesting that perhaps the easy path is simply to believe what those around you believe (though some would suggest it's always easiest to believe, regardless of cultural trends). Thus, if that's true, you would assume that in an atheist culture, the 'smart' ones would be at least more considerate of belief.

No. This is absolutely ridiculous, confused reasoning. In fact, it pains me to call it reasoning, at all. Intelligent people don't challenge the status quo based on the notion that they dislike what everyone else believes (or that because the status quo is some sort of stupid "easy path" that intelligent people want to avoid).

On the contrary, intelligent people challenge the status quo when IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. If the status quo is rational, we'll accept it and leave it be. However, this is rarely ever the case, because the average person influencing the culture tends to be a fucking moron. The majority of every society consists of SJ retards who defend the status quo at all costs, even if it makes no sense because they lack philosophical bones. Hence, society tends to progress very slowly.

Thus, if everyone believed that there were no God, intelligent people wouldn't simply go against the grain and believe in the opposite—some insanely illogical notion that there actually is a God. Intelligent people would just look for some other deficiency in the culture which they'll feel compelled to counteract not because they must counter the culture by nature, but because they CAN'T IGNORE THEIR LOGICAL REASONING.

So, you are making a giant confused mess out of this whole thing.

1. Intelligent people don't counter culture just to counter culture.
2. Intelligent people naturally oppose illogical, unreasonable aspects of culture.
3. Most of society is comprised of morons who hold illogical, unreasonable beliefs.

Therefore, if everyone were atheists, intelligent people would still be atheists and liberals (assuming general conservatism still exists). Intelligent people don't just believe something stupid the moment everyone else decides to believe in something smart for a change. That makes no sense, whatsoever.

So, hopefully you get it now. We have logic. Most people don't.
Therefore, we tend to have different beliefs because of our rare logical ability.
If everyone were logical today (meaning they became atheists), intelligent people would still continue to be logical. You don't just lose your general logicality the moment dumb people suddenly become smart.

 

[Moocow]

We have been moved!

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=6994

 

[Kevin Stratocaster]

Oh boy, another bullshit article coming from CNN...

Indeed. The 'scientist' who conducted this study, Satoshi Kanazawa, has a questionable reputation.