Intelligence on the left and the right.

R

Rune

Mjölner
[h=1]Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds[/h]ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
 
Return of Dune said:
Liberals and Atheists Smarter? Intelligent People Have Values Novel in Human Evolutionary History, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) — More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."
"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm
Click to expand...

How sad for you.....there is no need to ridicule all those homeless, jobless, underpaid, blue collar folks, lower and middle class workers, those living in

poverty,...all followers of your political philosophy, that share your values...after all, they are your base, your loyal voting block....

Intelligence....thats probably why they are as successful as they are....

I guess in comparison to you, they would seem intelligent....it is, after all, a relative term...
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
How sad for you.....there is no need to ridicule all those homeless, jobless, underpaid, blue collar folks, lower and middle class workers, those living in

poverty,...all followers of your political philosophy, that share your values...after all, they are your base, your loyal voting block....

Intelligence....thats probably why they are as successful as they are....

I guess in comparison to you, they would seem intelligent....it is, after all, a relative term...
Click to expand...

That wasn't a very intelligent response, was it?
 
Lowaicue said:
That wasn't a very intelligent response, was it?
Click to expand...

Well, it is somewhat over your head....have someone explain it to you....then

You can tell us about all these intelligent jobless, poor, trailer park, blue collar union, liberal democrat supporters you have .....

and explain how their intelligence made them so successful....

They are so intelligent, the prisons are full of them, they live under bridges and picket their workplaces.....
 
bravo said:
Well, it is somewhat over your head....have someone explain it to you....then

You can tell us about all these intelligent jobless, poor, trailer park, blue collar union, liberal democrat supporters you have .....

and explain how their intelligence made them so successful....

They are so intelligent, the prisons are full of them, they live under bridges and picket their workplaces.....
Click to expand...

I could not tell you about trailer parks because I have never seen one and wouldn't know anything about them. I could tell you about non American unions and how they have improved the lot of the common man, I could tell you about some of the world's greatest thinkers whose philosophies are left leaning, I could tell you of a hundred scientists who are left leaning, intelligent and who have improved you life. I could also tell you about the damage right wing politicians and leaders have caused to the world and I could tell you that intelligence, more often than not, leads one to a more liberal outlook on life.

I could, but you would neither accept nor understand.
Left hand down a bit. Watch for the golden rivet.
 
Lowaicue said:
I could not tell you about trailer parks because I have never seen one and wouldn't know anything about them. I could tell you about non American unions and how they have improved the lot of the common man, I could tell you about some of the world's greatest thinkers whose philosophies are left leaning, I could tell you of a hundred scientists who are left leaning, intelligent and who have improved you life. I could also tell you about the damage right wing politicians and leaders have caused to the world and I could tell you that intelligence, more often than not, leads one to a more liberal outlook on life.

I could, but you would neither accept nor understand.
Left hand down a bit. Watch for the golden rivet.
Click to expand...
The thing is though, Hong Kong is hardly anyone's idea of a Socialist society.
 
Lowaicue said:
I could not tell you about trailer parks because I have never seen one and wouldn't know anything about them. I could tell you about non American unions and how they have improved the lot of the common man, I could tell you about some of the world's greatest thinkers whose philosophies are left leaning, I could tell you of a hundred scientists who are left leaning, intelligent and who have improved you life. I could also tell you about the damage right wing politicians and leaders have caused to the world and I could tell you that intelligence, more often than not, leads one to a more liberal outlook on life.

I could, but you would neither accept nor understand.
Left hand down a bit. Watch for the golden rivet.
Click to expand...

You could huh.............?.....and you could run 100 mph and swim across the Atlantic too....

If you spread your cheeks a little we could see that golden rivet.....or is that a wrinkled testicle...
 
Bravo was a deck mopper in the navy, and too dumb to go to college after. Stop picking on the moron, he didn't understand half the words.
 
Generally, people in liberal areas aren't much smarter than people in conservative ones. You just get a lot of useful idiots who support good ideas for stupid reasons.
 
Meh, I've often thought that conservatives in the US are closer to being creatures of intuition, just going blindly by their instincts without question, assuming them to be natural and objectively true. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to accept something that initially seems counter-intuitive if there is a rational argument for it. A lot of libertarian ideology is counter-intuitive as well; although not the funhouse mirror version of libertarianism that the Tea Party has invented, which has figured out how to take all the thought of the ideology and simply reduced it to hurr hurr leave me alone. Then again, I'm naturally suspicious of any argument that suggests that people of one ideology are naturally better than another in some objective sense, because everyone of every ideology does that.
 
Watermarx said:
Meh, I've often thought that conservatives in the US are closer to being creatures of intuition, just going blindly by their instincts without question, assuming them to be natural and objectively true. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to accept something that initially seems counter-intuitive if there is a rational argument for it. A lot of libertarian ideology is counter-intuitive as well; although not the funhouse mirror version of libertarianism that the Tea Party has invented, which has figured out how to take all the thought of the ideology and simply reduced it to hurr hurr leave me alone. Then again, I'm naturally suspicious of any argument that suggests that people of one ideology are naturally better than another in some objective sense, because everyone of every ideology does that.
Click to expand...

And yet, you just did that in sense....wait until the voices stop and think about it all again....
 
A peer-reviewed scientific study can be debunked, but not by the usual JPP Tea-tard methodolgy.

Poor Blabo.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
The thing is though, Hong Kong is hardly anyone's idea of a Socialist society.
Click to expand...

There is a lot more than you might think.
There will be an election for the new Chief Executive in 2012. The 'electorate' will consist of 0.017% of the population and the winner has already been 'pencilled in'. There is a lot of indignation on the streets. A lot of people are feeling not a little discontent. there will be no guns, no riots but there will be pressure from a fast growing left wing.
 
Lowaicue said:
There is a lot more than you might think.
There will be an election for the new Chief Executive in 2012. The 'electorate' will consist of 0.017% of the population and the winner has already been 'pencilled in'. There is a lot of indignation on the streets. A lot of people are feeling not a little discontent. there will be no guns, no riots but there will be pressure from a fast growing left wing.
Click to expand...

Hong Kong has a weird system where only half the seats are elected by the people. The other half are selected by "functional constituencies" representing interests like insurance, finance, education, etc... God knows how they decided which sectors of society are worthy of their own seat. The voting in these constituencies is mixed between corporations and some individuals associated with the sector. Yes, they literally give corporations a vote, and one that's effectively worth way more than the average persons.

Also, because the democratic seats use a proportional system, while the functional ones are majoritarian (and, therefore, prone to landslides), it effectively exaggerates the voice of the functional half. This is sort of like when Colorado was thinking about allocating electoral votes proportionally, and people pointed out that this would basically reduce the amount of Coloradian votes in play from 7 to just 1. Proportional and majoritarian are fine on their own, but shouldn't be mixed, unless you hate the proportional guys. That's what happened in Hong Kong - the left-wing parties got 60% of the vote, and therefore 60% of the democratic seats, while they only won 10% of the functional ones, for 40% overall. Conversely, the pro-Beijing right wing (yep, pro-communist righties) won 40% of the vote, and received 60% of the seats. One of the right wing parties wasn't able to win any democratic seats, but still became one of the largest parties on functional seats alone. Anyway, there's supposed to be a theoretical transition to democracy at some point, but it keeps getting delayed. I think the target is permanently "the future".

I apologize for my bizarrely in-depth analysis of your regional politics, but as the resident expert in both electoral injustice and foreign politics, it was my duty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top