Visit Citebite Deep link provided by Citebite
Close this shade
Source:  http://www.physorg.com/news186236813.html

Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution

February 24, 2010

More intelligent people are 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 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 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."

An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in . Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were. In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.

One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.

More information: The article "Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent" will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

Provided by American Sociological Association (news : web)


   
Rate this story - 3.5 /5 (57 votes)

Rank Filter

Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

  • LKD - Feb 24, 2010
    • Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
    Uhuh... I have heard of forum trolls, but actual news article trolls? This is unexpected.
  • magpies - Feb 24, 2010
    • Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
    Why libs n atheists are... lol cool story bro.
  • El_Nose - Feb 24, 2010
    • Rank: 4.3 / 5 (3)
    I beg to differ --- start making celebrities of intelligent people the way NBA players are and add in the salary and my friend you will see the super smart will be a little more promiscuous when 10 girls are hiting on them at every bar and coffe shop it town.

    These statistics may be true -- but it is a result of social behaviour -- inteligence is rewarded in middle adulthood (late 20's forward) and the social norm is that fame follows the media attention.

    When Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Brian Kernighan, Douglas McIlroy, and Joe Ossanna (the programmers who wrote UNIX ) become household names then noone will want to be a football player cause the cheerleaders are at the ACM conference.
  • Roach - Feb 24, 2010
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
    with regards to social versus family protection, look at any herd animal, their behavior evolved towards protecting the herd often at the cost of the weak, slow, young, regardless of genetic link. So intelligent liberals are evolving toward cows? I think this is a pretty clear case of someone who wants to fit a curve to prove his preconceived notion. besides I thought the average IQ was renormalized to 110 some years ago which would make the bigger story not that one side or the other is smarter, but that either end of the spectrum falls significantly below the curve making moderate views across the board an indication of a higher intelligence to bring the overall average back up.
  • ralph_wiggum - Feb 24, 2010
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
    That's a pretty strong title there: "Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent". At least tone it down to something like "Liberalism and Atheism Correlate with Higher IQ" or else ALMIGHTY LORD WILL SMITE THEE!

    I'm liberal and atheist and all that progressive stuff but this is going over the top for an academic publication. It's just asking for a flame war.
  • marjon - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
    Intelligence used to imply common sense.
    We now have institutions which reward 'intelligent' individuals who have no common sense.
    Nature used to weed these people out quite early. Now they are voted into high public office to control the lives of others.
  • Skepticus - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
    "Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence."

    ROFL I expect a army Bible-toting gonna crash this site's comment box!
  • freethinking - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 2 / 5 (9)
    My guess is that the author is a leftist progressive atheist and the problem with leftist progressives is that they need affirmation that they are smarter than everyone else.

    I dont buy into either side conservative or leftist being smarter than the other.

  • Royale - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
    I never thought i could type this but... I agree with Ralph Wiggum. (I guess it's ok since it's clear he's not THE Ralph Wiggum). Honestly though, that title, is asking for a fight. As if the political fights aren't bad enough already... jeez...
    I do enjoy the fact that according to a nationally published scientific study, I am, in fact, more intelligent. Hah. You already can't get republicans to budge from their beliefs, do you think this will really help ANYTHING? Perhaps the writers are republican and trying on a little reverse psychology.
  • marjon - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 1.9 / 5 (9)
    My guess is that the author is a leftist progressive atheist and the problem with leftist progressives is that they need affirmation that they are smarter than everyone else.

    I dont buy into either side conservative or leftist being smarter than the other.


    I can understand why 'progressives' need such affirmation because none of their ideas succeed in creating a more prosperous society.
  • VOR - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
    some of these posts just prove the article. ralph
    stfu. title is dead on. you twisted it. article is appropriate. It sums up the experience and inclinations of those of us who are a little above average intelligence. Get the fk over it you all you who aren't. It's just the way it works. The dichotomy between preference of exclusivity between the sexes with respect to intelligence is interesting. Liberalism has nothing to do with cows or herd behavior. Its the inclination to foster concern for all of society instead of just your clan, and to a small degree, ahead of your clan, especially ahead of the short term benifits of your clan if they contradict long term planning. Progressives are just that and are Utilitarian. If you dont understand how it works, stop posting against it.
  • Royale - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.5 / 5 (4)
    I actually think it's great that for once physorg has a BETTER TITLE than authors of a paper. Everyone always rags on this site for poorly worded headings, but in this case I think the choice was right!
  • Royale - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
    Marjon, that's a little idiotic. People like Martin Luther King Jr. are leftist progressives (forget about the atheism that's too new). So you're saying they never got anything done? HAH.
    and VOR, while I agree with you I think you're missing that ralph was quoting the ACTUAL ARTICLE as given after the "More Information:" section. You two are on the same team here.
  • freethinking - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 1.6 / 5 (14)
    Interesting that most doctors, engineers, and hard science people are conservative and religious.

    Interesting that most criminals, journalists, humanities professors, people on welfare, bums on the street, are leftist progressives.

    Mind you after considering the fact that a lot of progressive leftists cant hold down a real job in the real world, and need to conservative religious people to support them, maybe they are smarter.
  • freethinking - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
    Royale, I dont know too much acout MLK jr. but didnt he say dont judge a man by the color of his skin, but by his character. That is a conservative belief, not a progressive leftist belief.
  • Royale - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.9 / 5 (8)
    hmm.. since welfare was created through "progressive leftists" it's interesting for you to say they can't hold down a job since they obviously were in that position to CREATE welfare in the first place..

    Don't just say most doctors, engineers, blah blah blah are conservative and religious. You can't just make up "facts" because you think they're so.

    Let's not be silly here. You should be a little more freethinking with your ideas. :)
  • VOR - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
    thanks royale. sorry ralph, my bad. (your name didnt help lol) I see that now, dont always read the more info part. We progressives tend to be more measured so our voice gets drowned by the ignorant absolutist noise, but sometimes I lose that restraint. yeah it's a stupid, backwards title. We are of course instead Liberal and Atheist because we're more intelligent. And that alone is obviously enough to start that flame war. Sadly there seems to be a relationship between one's intelligence and one's tendency to recognize and appreciate those even more intelligent. Maybe there's a threshold range.
  • Royale - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (7)
    That's a conservative belief? Not to judge by color of skin? Are you insane?
    So lemme guess, next you're going to say that slave owners were progressive and leftist.
    We're talking about moving away from the norm... thus PROGRESSING... think man.
  • Javinator - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (6)
    It's not so much saying that it's stupid to believe in God. It's more saying that critical thinkers are more likely to challenge their parents'/society's beliefs/ideas while non-critical thinkers are less likely.

    Less critical thinkers brought up in aetheist/liberal households, by this article's logic, are more likely to remain as such than be convinced otherwise.

    Article should have left religion and politics out of it.
  • VOR - 23 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.5 / 5 (8)
    Royale, I dont know too much acout MLK jr. but didnt he say dont judge a man by the color of his skin, but by his character. That is a conservative belief, not a progressive leftist belief.

    free u r without question the dumbest troll that regularly posts on this site. Of course racism is conservative trait. what u said is verifiably factually false. You stated the exact opposite of things. I pretty much think u just post to cause trouble and know how crazy you are posting. If you really believe what you post you need to go back for some more edumacation.
  • Javinator - 22 hours ago
    • Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
    I know it's the internet and everything, but you should really try typing properly if you want anyone to take anything you say seriously.
  • freethinking - 22 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.5 / 5 (11)
    Conservative, fundamentalist Religious Christians did fight slavery. A republican freed the slaves. etc. etc. However many high level democrats in the 1920-1970s were memebers of the KKK.(the numbers will suprise you) Racism is a leftist trait. Hitler was a socialist (read leftist). Stalin (again a socialst) was also a racist. Obamas rev. wright is also a racist socialist.

    Come on now, please read history.
  • deafgirl01 - 22 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (6)
    So is this one of those thing where people believe that if you don't think the way they think, you have a lower IQ? Like if you are taught lessons that have been shaped by liberals and they test you, and think you have lower IQ...Well, I think they will fail my faith IQ test too (not bible lesson. Just faith).

    Anyway, it hardly ever easy for intelligent, highly educated, and wealthy people to have faith in God and even the bible mentioned this.
  • JayK - 22 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    Revisionist history and anti-intellectual idiocy. That must be freethinking himself. Now if you guys can just get him to start in on bashing homosexuals, you'll have the trifecta!
  • Royale - 22 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
    Hahahaha. I know JayK, right, he says "please read history" like in the 10 minutes between posts he somehow educated himself on the topic. Once again free as in another post you had today, you can't just state something as true. That's great that you think that way, and you may truly believe it. Still doesn't make it fact.
  • RJB26 - 22 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
    liberals smart? theres never been a group of people more willing to be led around by the nose in the history of mankind. i guess if your idea of smart is being highly susceptible to every form of groupthink and letting other people run every aspect of your lives, jayk must be the smartest person in the world. freethinking is correct when he says racism is historically speaking the purview of democrats. the kkk was the terrorist wing of the southern democrats. Abraham Lincoln was a republican. i know your a good little leftist, zombie, parrot, jayk and rewriting history is generally what you automatons do. i guess we cant really hold you accountable for your worldview since you've been programmed to think that way. just like you shouldnt be held responsible for any aspect of your life. no the taxpayers and the government should provide you with health care, pension,union job,a house and car. now thats smart.
  • Gammakozy - 21 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (6)
    Another piece of liberal propoganda skewed to achieve the pre-determined result that confirms their biases. How convenient is it that the study stops at "young adults". It is well established that individuals become increasingly conservative as they age. So does the IQ of all the liberal converts to conservativism drop with age? Have these liberal progrssives not learned anything from the exposure of the fraud and perversion of science by the man made Global Warming zealots? Guess not. I have no doubt that a close examination of the instruments used, subject sampling and statistacle devices will expose many irregularities and selective bias.
  • Simonsez - 21 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
    I didn't realize they moved All Fools' Day to the 24th of February.
  • JayK - 21 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    Just to have some fun:

    Does East Germany's Democratic Republic discredit the theory of Democracy because of the name? Or maybe you've read and understood Germany's "Charter of Labor" and you still believe that Hitler was a socialist? Are you aware of the Dixiecrat revolution in America?
  • freethinking - 21 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    John Newton, slave owner, slave trader, After conversion to Christianity joined forces with Abolionist Willian wilberforce (another Christian) and fought for the passage of the Slave Trade Act of 1807. - common knowledge -
    George Wallace Jr. KKK member ran for president 3 times as a Democrat -common knowlege-

    Democrats and the KKK all common knowlege for anyone who has studied history. Look it up.

    JayK et al, Hitler was a socialist. Stalin was a communist. KKK were the progressives of the 1920s. Look it up.
  • kasen - 21 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
    OK, so, politically speaking, if I believe there should be concentration camps for sociologists, what would that make me?

    On the one hand, its a form of discrimination, so extreme right-wing stuff. On the other hand, it would eliminate any sources of discrimination and generally speaking people won't be given any "scientific" reason to think they're unequal, so pretty hardcore left-wing.

    Honestly, what is the utility of this sort of research? All I see is a constant feedback loop. An actual scientific article usually requires prior knowledge and education. "Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent" only requires literacy to get the gist of it and form an opinion, which will become the data of a subsequent study. This is not science...
  • Skeptic_Heretic - 21 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
    I've never read a more transparent piece of garbage in my life, except maybe that one time I dripped grease on the Boston Globe. That was fairly transparent as well, transparent enough where I could read something of substance through it in any event.

    The only interesting pieces I could discern from this article are that societal pressures are now shaping evolution as greatly as natural pressures.

    Social Darwinists around the word unite with me in saying "Duh."

    And just an FYI: The KKK has at least one officer in the senate currently. Senator Byrd (Democrat) is a former high officer of the KKK, or as he refers to them a Knight of the Golden Circle.
  • Simonsez - 21 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
    And so JayK gives me a 1 rating on my light-hearted jibe at the obvious leftist bias of this article, then follows up with another rating of 1 on my suggestion that the Obamites' methods of punishing the poor/who can only afford cheaper foods, could be instead revised with tax credit or subsidies for healthier foods.

    Seems like someone is butthurt that liberalism is unpopular in this forum.

    My opinion of this article is that there may be some research of scientific merit regarding the correlation of higher IQ score to "progressive" thinking, but that the author of the article is very obviously biased against those who do not fall in line with their -isms of choice. Poor journalism, that's all.
  • Loodt - 21 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
    This article is incomplete without a comment on the size of testicles and length of penis. Very sloppy, shoddy, and slack research!
  • RJB26 - 21 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    what are you babbling about? nazi is short for national socialist. it wasnt germanys charter of labor it was italys charter of labor genius. the charter of labor was a vehicle designed to garner the support of rich industialists to hop on mussolinis fascist bandwagon. it did nothing but consolidate his power. oh and democracy isnt a theory smart liberal athiest guy it is a form of government. and not the form we live under in america. usually when you hear leftists talking about "democracy" what theyre talking about is socialism. orwellian style. like your heroes chavez and castro.
  • cattiva - 21 hours ago
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
    monogamist, male liberal atheists are more intelligent .... hmmmmm ...Science? ????!!!!
  • Royale - 21 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
    That's a good point Loodt. They definitely should have added that.
  • marjon - 20 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
    Interesting that most doctors, engineers, and hard science people are conservative and religious.

    Interesting that most criminals, journalists, humanities professors, people on welfare, bums on the street, are leftist progressives.

    Mind you after considering the fact that a lot of progressive leftists cant hold down a real job in the real world, and need to conservative religious people to support them, maybe they are smarter.

    An ET observes humans feeding dogs, walking dogs and picking up their crap. Humans work all day while the dogs sleep and play all day.
    The ETs must conclude dogs rule the world (at least in the USA).
  • JayK - 20 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
    Many countries have had a "Charter of Labor". In this case, I specifically referred to East Germany's, which may have been difficult, as the post had over 2 lines, which can be very difficult for conservatives with a low IQ. Democracy is very much a theory on forms of government, and is most likely an unachievable perfection.

    Since you think that Nazi = "National Socialist" means that socialism was the leading economical model for Germany, maybe you can then explain the German Democratic Republic and how "democratic" Germany was at the time of the German Democratic Republic. You can't say that the name defines the practice for one and not the other.

    And for those that think this study is worthless, can you please point to the methodologies that were flawed or perhaps a parallel study that shows a completely different conclusion?
  • JayK - 20 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    "While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility... Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested - mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism."

    -- Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny
  • marjon - 20 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    Marjon, that's a little idiotic. People like Martin Luther King Jr. are leftist progressives (forget about the atheism that's too new). So you're saying they never got anything done? HAH.
    and VOR, while I agree with you I think you're missing that ralph was quoting the ACTUAL ARTICLE as given after the "More Information:" section. You two are on the same team here.

    MLK was a Christian minister who believed all people should be treated equally. Without conservatives and Christians in the Congress, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed.
    It was the Kennedy's who used federal powers to enforce civil rights. It was JFK who cut taxes to revive the economy.
    JFK believed people should keep more of their money. Teddy Roosevelt, a 'progressive' gave speeches condemning those who made too much money.
  • JayK - 20 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
    History without context, next on marjonLive!
  • Caliban - 19 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
    Come on in y'all- we're havin' us a Hootenanny!!!

    Free- look again, my man- it was the Republican-Democrats. The Democrat Party wasn't formed until circa 1830- very near the end of the Slavery Era in America:

    http://en.wikiped..._States)

    Another Inaccuracy(this in the article itself).Female monogamy has not always been the norm, even in historical times.

    I agree that this is some total Flame Bait as written. But I disagree with the central premise of the research that we can pinpoint traits as abstract as these and with any authority say that they have been evolutionarily selected either "for" OR "against" this is some crackpot hogwash.
  • freethinking - 19 hours ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
    Caliban... I hate to say it, but I agree with you.
  • JayK - 19 hours ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
    @Caliban: I think you might have misread something:
    In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women.

    The article above does not say that women were monogamous. It says it is novel for men to be exclusive, but for women it was kinda indeterminate. The section that says "women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate." is actually poorly worded and may be what you have an issue with. I read it as the "social" expectation that women would be sexually exclusive.
  • frenchie - 19 hours ago
    • Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
    Interesting that most doctors, engineers, and hard science people are conservative and religious.

    Interesting that most criminals, journalists, humanities professors, people on welfare, bums on the street, are leftist progressives.


    What...the....F***
    Wake up from whatever dream you've been living in and stop saying absolutely retarded comments like these. You're only proving either that:
    A) you're an extremist on the right
    or
    B) your IQ is in single digit numbers.

    Your statements are insulting and without any statistical references, proof or foundation. Please try again.
  • marjon - 19 hours ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
    History without context, next on marjonLive!

    Yep, you are right, King was a 'progressive'.

    http://www.lewroc...in9.html
  • Caliban - 18 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
    @JayK,
    I did misread that. Vive La Difference! As our French brothers(and sisters) would say.
  • JayK - 18 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    @Caliban:
    I had to read it 3 or 4 times to make sure I understood it, it was incredibly poorly written. I wish I had access to that journal in order to actually try to clarify, for myself at the least, if they are talking about social pressures or evolutionary ones.
  • freethinking - 17 hours ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
    religious servey of doctors

    http://chronicle....--.shtml

    real easy to find if you look

    I'll try and find the engineer study....

    BTW I had my IQ taken several times...
    at 15 my IQ was 131
    at 17 my IQ was 125
    at 25 my IQ was 129

    But I dont hold much stock in IQ, If you ever see a mensa get together, they dont seem all that smart :)

    Frenchie It does seem to go without saying, people who use foul language us it because theyre not smart enough to live without it.

    I worked with a kid who was in grade one whose foul language was embarasing the teacher. I said to the kid I know your smart and I want others to know your smart so use smart words...He promised to use smart words.... been over a year now and hes proving to be a smart kid...
  • RJB26 - 17 hours ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
    this is what leftists always do. change the subject, muddy the waters. but just for fun- the german "democratic" republic was ruled by the socialist unity party(SED). the SED was a marriage between the SOCIAL democratic party and the communist party. east germany was centrally planned from top to bottom, nothing democratic about it. did they have elections? yes. were the candidates hand picked by the communists and socialists ruling the country? yes. the economic model was called the "planned construction of socialism". complete with 5 year plans, industrial quotas,etc. this economic model evolved to the "new economic system" which led to some decentralization but not much. the next iteration was called the "economic system of socialism" which reinforced central planning but geared it toward higher technology. then the "main task" came along which refocused on marxism/leninism. all this came after hitler and the nazis so im not even sure what the point your trying to make is.
  • JayK - 17 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    so im not even sure what the point your trying to make is

    Yeah, I know you don't.
  • RJB26 - 17 hours ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
    enlighten me o wise one. babble on a little more for me maybe you could open my eyes. my suspicion is you have no idea what your talking about so you substitute snark for cogent argument, which is fine with me. im definitely amused. at you not with you.
  • bottomlesssoul - 17 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
    @Caliban:
    I wish I had access to that journal in order to actually try to clarify, for myself at the least, if they are talking about social pressures or evolutionary ones.


    They are one and the same. Social constructs should be free to evolve and the more active the brain the faster they evolve. I think it's a bit more complicated than the author suggested. For example it's hard to be openly gay in an environment where one face "fag dragging" by predators. There are more environmental pressures to evolving social constructs than simply how efficient an individual's brain is.

    We are primed for paranoia, there is an enormous body of evidence to support this. So imagined social violence to behavior change is enough stop many people from acting out. As Stalin said It's cheaper to put a policeman in everyones head than to put one on every corner".

    What's not mentioned is sample size so all claims for or against are meaningless. It's just noise.
  • PinkElephant - 17 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
    @freethinking, from your link:
    Physicians are 26 times more likely to be Hindu than the overall U.S. population (5.3 percent of doctors vs. 0.2 percent of nonphysicians). Doctors are seven times more likely to be Jewish (14.1 percent vs. 1.9 percent), six times more likely to be Buddhist (1.2 percent vs. 0.2 percent) and five times more likely to be Muslim (2.7 percent vs. 0.5 percent).
    It seems, doctors rather more frequently eschew Christianity for OTHER religions. It also seems to hint that U.S. doctor population is biased toward immigrant sources. These two observations out to tickle you some, no? Here's a bit more to ponder:
    The finding also differs radically from 90 years of studies showing that only a minority of scientists (excluding physicians) believes in God or an afterlife. ... We suspect that people who combine an aptitude for science with an interest in religion and an affinity for public service are particularly attracted to medicine.
  • PinkElephant - 17 hours ago
    • Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
    @RJB26, affiliations and definitions change over time. You can't use Stalin's definition of "socialism", to describe modern western socialists as somehow Stalinist. Here's an example from U.S. history: the so-called "party of Lincoln" today is dominated by people who resent Lincoln, still haven't recovered from the civil war, and still haven't forgiven the depredations of the Yankees. Similarly, the Democrats of the early 20th century aren't the same ideologically as the ones from late 20th century (in the midst of the Civil Rights movement, the so-called yellow-dogs defected, and joined the Republicans in opposition.)

    Every modern Progressive would've stood beside MLK, would've marched for women's suffrage, would've protested the Vietnam war, would've fought for desegregation of the South, would've cheered Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting, would've supported FDR's New Deal, and would've been thoroughly disgusted by the destructive hypocrisies of Reaganites and Reaganomics.
  • marjon - 17 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    BTW I had my IQ taken several times...
    at 15 my IQ was 131
    at 17 my IQ was 125
    at 25 my IQ was 129

    Why? Feeling insecure?
  • maxcypher - 17 hours ago
    • Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
    I think @Javinator's first comment had an actually scientific response for this extremely ambiguous (and apparently, inflammatory) article. I just wish that politics was a system of thought (oxymoron?) having enough internal rigor to actually determine which answers are true or false. Of course, it doesn't. This means that politicos will be forever shouting (i.e., 'wars') at each other, ad nauseum.
  • otto1923 - 16 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
    Some people are actually born without IQs at all... (don't mean you wiggins)
    I'm liberal and atheist and all that progressive stuff but this is going over the top
    I am 'conservative' and athiest and I think all those who tag themselves on either side are posturers and dupes. You're all saying "I'm free I'm free" but none of us are. Not even Lieberman. You're all bound by your ideology. Oh and animals are uniformly paranoid (except the domesticated ones) and they don't invoke god for protection or blame. God is for Pudels with tags around their necks.
  • marjon - 16 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    which answers are true or false

    It all depends upon the observer.
    In economics, the buyer and seller determine the value of the product sold. There is no true or false.
    Politics is all about having power to control others for certain goals. What are the goals? Individual liberty? Individuals must be sacrificed for the collective?
    It is obvious not everyone has the same economic or political objectives.
  • otto1923 - 16 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    It seems, doctors rather more frequently eschew Christianity for OTHER religions
    What, you mean convert? That don't make sense.
  • otto1923 - 16 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    They are one and the same.
    No they're not. One is inextricably sociopolitical.
    Social constructs should be free to evolve and the more active the brain the faster they evolve
    You contradict yourself. 'Social' constructs involve more than one brain. And being openly gay- or any such lascivious or intrusive behavior- naturally annoys most people. But you don't care... Or maybe you do?
  • PinkElephant - 16 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    It seems, doctors rather more frequently eschew Christianity for OTHER religions
    What, you mean convert? That don't make sense.
    Unlikely (though may be true in a few cases.) Rather, they do not convert. Those that come from immigrant families, simply retain whatever religion they were raised with (be it Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, or Islam.) Which is an observation that ought to make some rabid Christians on here wonder: what if they weren't indoctrinated with their faith from childhood, but with some other faith instead (or lack of faith altogether) -- would they still be Christians right now?
  • JayK - 16 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    I think you might have had a better point if you had stuck to the statistics that say that American medical doctors are not symbolic of the general religious makeup of America, which is an interesting discussion, and while it may not have generated the amount of Christian vitriol as this wonderful thread.
  • Frink - 15 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
    "Freethinking."

    You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

    1) First off, Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist. Hardly anything about his regime is "socialist." This is something you could learn in a 100-level political science class.

    Yes, I realize the Nazi's were "Nationalist Socialists," but that doesn't make them socialist any more than North Korea calling itself the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" makes it a democracy. Sorry bub.

    2) Communism and Socialism are kindred ideologies (with a caveat being that one does not necessarily entail the other). Read Marx if you want to see why. Hitler's Germany was fascist. Communism (Stalin) and Fascism (Hitler) are mutually-exclusive ideologies. In fact, Mr. History, they even fought each other in World War 2. Fascism is a right-wing ideology. Communism is a left-wing ideology. Wishing it otherwise does not make it so.
  • Frink - 15 hours ago
    • Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
    3) Sure, some Democrats were KKK members. However, that was predominantly in the South--the conservative South. You simply cannot lay the misdeeds of the Democratic Party at the feet of modern liberalism. First off, the polarization of the parties is a relatively new phenomenon that did not solidify until the 1960's, when the Democratic Party's policy forever parted them from the South. Looking at a modern electoral map reflects the ongoing divide.

    In short, the Democratic Party was not always associated with liberalism (again, read history). What racism has always been associated with, however, is conservatism. Even today there is a consistency between what I've just said and the common presence of conservative, blue-dog democrats in the South. Y'know, the red state south; the one dominated by conservatives.

    ---

    Please, get an education, THEN have an opinion. Pretending to know what you're talking about does not impress those of us who actually do.
  • Bloodoflamb - 15 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    with regards to social versus family protection, look at any herd animal, their behavior evolved towards protecting the herd often at the cost of the weak, slow, young, regardless of genetic link. So intelligent liberals are evolving toward cows? I think this is a pretty clear case of someone who wants to fit a curve to prove his preconceived notion. besides I thought the average IQ was renormalized to 110 some years ago which would make the bigger story not that one side or the other is smarter, but that either end of the spectrum falls significantly below the curve making moderate views across the board an indication of a higher intelligence to bring the overall average back up.

    The average IQ is DEFINED to be 100.
  • marjon - 15 hours ago
    • Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
    "Freethinking."

    You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

    1) First off, Hitler was a fascist, not a socialist. Hardly anything about his regime is "socialist." This is something you could learn in a 100-level political science class.


    That's what a modern 'liberal arts' education gets you today, propaganda.

    "It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the registered members of the communist parties and the fellow-travellers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism. "
    http://www.econli...Epilogue
    Are you a fellow traveler?
  • marjon - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
    "Equally significant, Communist Party official Jarvis Tyner has written an article, "The persecution of Van Jones and the struggle for democracy," defending Jones against the "racist and red baiting attack" that he blames on those to whom capitalism is a "cult-like religion." "

    "Despite the forced resignation of Jones, Tyner is more determined than ever to support Obama. "It's time for action," Tyner went on to say. "Contact your representative and let them know what you think. Support the local demarcations candle light vigils, demonstrations and house gatherings being sponsored by Move on and Organizing for America."

    MoveOn.org is another Soros-funded organization, while Organizing for America is the official successor to the Obama for President campaign and continues to organize people to support the Obama agenda."

    http://www.aim.or...n-jones/

    Why are all those 'smart' people in DC pursuing economic policies that have failed?
  • Frink - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
    Education first, then opinion

    That's what a modern 'liberal arts' education gets you today, propaganda.

    "It is important to realize that Fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships. The communists, both the registered members of the communist parties and the fellow-travellers, stigmatize Fascism and Nazism as the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism. "
    http://www.econli...Epilogue
    Are you a fellow traveler?


    Says the guy who quotes someone who also has no clue what he's talking about.

    1) Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism." Fascism rejects capitalism as does communism. Having a "laissez faire" style of economy does not provide the kind of control totalitarian forms of government require.

    2) Fascists had a more feudalism-styled economic system. Whoever you're quoting managed to misrepresent both totalitarian ideologies in a single sentence. Wow.

    ---

    What was that about propaganda?
  • Mc3lnosher - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.3 / 5 (3)
    Like Frink and PinkElephant said the names change and allegiances waiver. Parties only hold certain views until they stop getting them votes. Right and left tendencies can be found in the stances of both parties currently. And to try to equate the status of a party today to when Lincoln was around is pretty meaningless.

    All in all left still means left. Right still means right. Progressive and conservative still describe stances. Socialism, facism, communism, democracy, anarchy, monarchy, totalitarianism, and republics all describe systems of government. I believe that all of these systems can work and can be the best for a society. It just depends on the circumstances in that country at that time. Democracy wasn't some golden egg laid by god that should replace every other social contract ever made. It is a specific solution for governing. It works great for some groups. Others, no.
  • Ronan - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 4.7 / 5 (3)
    ...Sigh. I know that everyone is, understandably, far more interested in the whole issue of whether or not this research is hideously flawed and biased or not. It strikes close to values, religion, and politics, and all three grab into emotions like grappling hooks. However, I can't help but wonder; SUPPOSING that this study is valid (whether you agree or not, please, just bear with me), then it has some very interesting evolutionary implications. If higher intelligence is associated with what are, basically, maladaptive traits (monogamy yields fewer offspring, a non-kin-centered world view hampers kin selection, and atheism...well, considering how prevalent religion is, I should be very surprised if atheism were adaptive), then...would that act as a ceiling on human intelligence? Perhaps it's not actually possible for us to evolve to be much smarter than we are now, because if our intelligence increases too much, we start resisting our own instincts
  • PinkElephant - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
    @Frink,
    Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism."
    I think you misunderstand that thesis. The idea is that Fascism is an ultimate blending of government and mega-business. In a Laissez Faire system, lacking regulation, mega-monopolies eventually emerge through M&A and formation of Trusts -- this is basically the corporate form of organized crime (like Mafia), which is very stable and virulent; with their superior resources they eventually capture the press and the government (the latter through bribes, revolving doors, campaign financing, tailored legislation, etc.); the endgame is Fascism -- which, as you've put it, is similar to high-tech Feudalism, and can also be described as Plutocracy. Ironically, the process results in draconian curtailment of freedoms and competition, despite the fact that it begins with an ideally free and 100% competitive state.
  • Ronan - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
    (Continued from my earlier post): and select out that greater intelligence. Full disclosure; I'm very biased towards that idea, because in some of my fiction writing, I use a very similar idea of intelligence being, if carried too far, maladaptive--and of course, I'd be glad to see my science fiction held up by actual science.

    ...Alright, I know, compared to the other implications of this study and the arguments over its validity that's probably of little general interest. Just thought I'd throw it out there.
  • Frink - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
    Ronan - What's curious to me is whether or not these maladaptive traits are actually artifacts of living in a post-industrial society; in that these traits, even if they correlate with a higher intelligence, are expressed only through living in such a society, where otherwise they would not.
  • marjon - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    @Frink,
    Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism."
    I think you misunderstand that thesis. The idea is that Fascism is an ultimate blending of government and mega-business. In a Laissez Faire system, lacking regulation, mega-monopolies eventually emerge through M&A and formation of Trusts -- this is basically the corporate form of organized crime (like Mafia), which is very stable and virulent; with their superior resources they eventually capture the press and the government (the latter through bribes, revolving doors, campaign financing, tailored legislation, etc.); the endgame is Fascism -- which, as you've put it, is similar to high-tech Feudalism, and can also be described as Plutocracy. Ironically, the process results in draconian curtailment of freedoms and competition, despite the fact that it begins with an ideally free and 100% competitive state.

    It is you completely misunderstand Fascism and free markets.
  • JayK - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
    Ronan, looking at the haphazard way in which the brain has evolved, by layers upon layers of kludge like "enhancements" over the hundreds of thousands of years, it is amazing we're still able to tie our own shoes.
  • PinkElephant - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
    @Ronan,
    monogamy yields fewer offspring
    Not necessarily; look at Catholics... Also, as the world becomes overpopulated, the cost of offspring goes up dramatically, meaning the quality of their upbringing (and their chances in life) goes down.
    a non-kin-centered world view hampers kin selection
    Modern civilization does the same. Relatives no longer live in closely knit communities; estrangement is common.
    and atheism...well, considering how prevalent religion is, I should be very surprised if atheism were adaptive
    This can also change over time, as science continues to progress, and as scientific literacy rises, as it must, due to an increasingly technological culture and environment. Science literacy positively correlates with atheism.
    If our intelligence increases too much, we start resisting our own instincts
    Would that really be an intelligent thing to do?
  • Frink - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
    @PinkElephant - I have no problem with that chain of events. What should be noted though is that Fascism, in the context we're discussing, did not (nor has ever, as far as I can tell) arise in that manner. It arose in a reactionary movement among the countries who lost World War 1; and, in violation of the Congress of Vienna, the winners placed further burdens upon the already physically, economically and psychologically-devastated countries. Here, with exceptions, things such as capitalism and the industrial revolution came late, which further wrecked their system, making it utterly impossible for the chain of events you've described to take place.

    Mises was speaking from a McCarthyist point of view at the time and had no quantitative data to back up his claims. The rise of fascism did not culminate in the highest and most depraved stage of capitalism, but in a state of reactionary desperation. I think the forementioned sequence of events is plausible, but still theoretical.
  • marjon - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
    Pinkie builds the straw man that free markets have no regulation. Free markets are regulated by the participants.
    When governments intervene with coercive regulations, all the bad things he blames upon free markets emerge.
    Fascism, as Mussolini, its inventor, wrote is socialism and has its origins in government coercion, not in free market persuasion.
  • Ronan - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    Frink: You mean, take a highly intelligent human from today who is an atheist, progressive, monogamous feller, and plunk him down in, say, a Clovis village thirteen thousand years ago (that's, um, within the correct time frame for the Clovis culture, correct?), and he (or however many multiples of him you need to get a good representative sample size) wouldn't exhibit any of these modern maladaptive traits? I'm sure that's so, to some extent. The trouble, I'd imagine, is figuring out to what extent.
  • marjon - 14 hours ago
    • Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
    Mises was speaking from a McCarthyist point of view at the time and had no quantitative data to back up his claims. The rise of fascism did not culminate in the highest and most depraved stage of capitalism, but in a state of reactionary desperation. I think the forementioned sequence of events is plausible, but still theoretical.

    1. Vanona Intercepts have proven McCarthy was right.
    2. From Mises' Socialism his critiques of socialism are being born out today around the world, including the USA.
  • Frink - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
    @Ronan

    I'm reminded of conditions such as Stockholm syndrome which, for those unaware, is a condition through which an unwilling prisoner (of war or a hostage/kidnapping scenario) becomes sympathetic to his or her captors, and may decide to aid them.

    The interesting thing about Stockholm syndrome is that it is VERY conducive to survival in these types of dangerous situations. Despite the hostage's otherwise independent nature prior to the abduction, psychologically, their brains overcompensate to increase chances of survival. Consider, for instance, the Patty Hearst incident in the 1970's.

    What I'm suggesting is that the culture shock experienced by our hypothetical subject would be similar in many ways to the shock experienced by one who immediately goes from having freedom to not having freedom. The parallels between being held hostage and not being restricted in our behavior and the restrictions associated with being plucked up and put in an alien culture are worth considering
  • Ronan - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
    Pink Elephand

    All good points, but nonetheless, I think a few of my original suppositions might still stand. Monogamy can produce a lot of offspring given the right cultural environment, true, but polygamy in general ought still to be able to beat it without too much trouble. Modern civilization, also, is...well, modern. It's probably had a very slight influence on our genes, but not much, and the forces that shaped us (favoring kin-selection, family-centered goals, etc.) could still be expected to be very much in effect. I may be misunderstanding your point there, though, so if so I apologize. I don't know enough about the history of atheism over time, and how common/uncommon it was in different cultures in the past, to really be able to defend my position there, I guess. And as for the last...Our instincts are there to fulfill evolution's goals, not our own, and they can act as both carrots and sticks. Resisting some of the sticks might lead to a maladaptive but happier life.
  • Frink - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
    Marjon, honestly? We're aligning ourselves with McCarthy's authoritarian policies now? Son, let your credibility take a rest. It's suffered enough for one night.
  • Ronan - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
    "Pink Elephant," I meant; sorry, typo.
    And that wasn't quite what I had in mind, Frink (I was angling more for the effect of raising a very bright person in modern culture versus raising a very bright person in, say, a hunter-gatherer culture, with no culture shock involved), but that's an interesting thing to consider too. You're pondering the effect of a sort of cultural equivalent of Stockholm syndrome on the intelligent/"intelligent" maladaptive traits, correct? The Connecticut Yankee ends up becoming just another serf, rather than taking on the role of Merlin's rival...Hm.
  • Caliban - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    @Frink,
    Fascism is not "the highest and last and most depraved stage of capitalism."


    Whether you agree with that particular definition or not, there are definite signs that we might soon be experiencing the fact:

    http://www.global...Id=17736

    Food for thought.
  • PinkElephant - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: 4.7 / 5 (3)
    @Ronan,

    Regarding atheism over time, I would imagine it's an emergent phenomenon. Prior to the advent of modern science, and even prior to Enlightenment, there were too many mysterious and unexplainable things in the world, and it would have been very hard for anyone to get by without believing in some sort of spirits or magic. Superstition is the natural state of mind among the ignorant, and from superstition to full-blown religion it's a rather small and easy leap.

    Concerning polygamy (and infidelity), consider also STDs. With growing population density, these become a real scourge; in such an environment monogamy gains extra advantages.

    With respect to the last point, what I mean is that going against one's natural urges (such as socialization and procreation) is not an intelligent thing to do -- it leads to unhappiness and even depression. An intelligent person would aim to avoid such unfavorable outcomes...
  • Frink - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
    The Connecticut Yankee ends up becoming just another serf, rather than taking on the role of Merlin's rival...Hm.


    Bingo. It's better to be a serf than to be burned at the stake. No amount of progressive morality or scientific understanding is going to stop a sword from chopping your limbs. Add a few years and the brain begins a process of synaptic pruning, then poof! It's as if our modern knowledge and sensibilities never existed.
  • Caliban - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
    Quote function didn't execute properly on my last post(3rd up from here.CHECK IT OUT.) Then delay for flood control. Sorry.
  • PinkElephant - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
    Quote function didn't execute properlyon my last post. Then delay for flood control. Sorry.
    Use the "edit" function. The flood control prevents you from making another post within 3 minutes of a preceding post you've made. That's also the exact interval over which you're allowed to edit your last post once you've submitted it.

    By the way, nice article.
  • Frink - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    @Caliban

    Current trends in int'l relations suggest a consolidation of power of non-governmental organizations (NGO's), among them in particular are multi-national corporations (MNC's). There has been a continual trend since the Industrial Revolution in which MNC's and IGO's (Intergovernmental Organizations) have been ever-increasing in influence.

    Being that the very idea of the State is one which is relatively new (400-ish years old) in human history, it is not expected that the State will exist in any form comparable to what we now have. What is expected are more conglomerations such as the European Union (EU). Smart money is on the Arab League eventually consolidating, despite their historic differences. With this, too, comes the increased prominence of MNC's. What I find most interesting are the projections of when this will happen--some estimates as early as 50 years!

    Unfortunately, it's hard to talk about this without New World Order nuts polluting it with conspiracy theories
  • Ronan - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    Pink Elephant: I hadn't considered the disease angle to polygamy; however, as you note, that would be more significant in denser populations, so perhaps its effects might only arise in cities, and not in less centralized cultures.

    And oddly enough, your last point is my point, as well; that recognizing how one's instincts (or emotions, etc.; they don't have to be thought of as instincts by the person in question for the idea to hold) might be an intelligent course of action, in that one could recognize that indulging certain instincts just led to unhappiness (evolution's stick when you miss the carrot), and might therefore resolve to just avoid both carrot and stick, and find happiness in milder, less sternly-mandated behaviors. The strongest emotions, whether they be positive or negative, are tough to deal with, and can bring a lot of grief along with any joy. It might be intelligent to just steer clear of them and aim for less violent emotional waters.
  • Ronan - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    But then again, I'm really being hideously conceited with that last point. I consider myself (like, I imagine, most people do) to be pretty intelligent, and that "tug against evolution's puppet-strings" philosophy is, well, my philosophy. The dots do not take much connecting, there. Perhaps that just boils down to personal preference: plenty of people, maybe most, certainly DO like a little or a lot of emotional spice in their life.
  • Frink - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
    (continued) Anyway, it is conceivable that MNC's, which are asserting themselves in the process of globalization far faster than regulation is globalizing, could initiate the type of process PinkElephant describes. But, again, this is all highly theoretical.

    Fortunately, we do have some facts on our side. Since the I.R., corporate entities have rarely willingly self-regulated. If they did, there would be no need for government regulation.

    Second, it's a fact that businesses, during the post-civil war reconstruction period, were more powerful than the government. In cases such as the infamous Railroad Strikes, or the Pullman Strike, or the tumultuous 1890's, the national guard was actually used at the whim of private enterprise, at times with deadly results. What will their behavior resemble when the power balance between governments and MNC's shifts in favor of MNC's? Will precedent apply?

    These are the types of things that come to my mind when broaching the topic.
  • Caliban - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    @Frink.
    The linked article takes a considerably different, and much more portentious view of developing Fascism. Have a read at some point. It's fairly lengthy, but well worth it.
  • Aeiluindae - 13 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    Since when did IQ become a useful method for determining intelligence? I was under the impression that it tended to be quite culturally biased, as well as failing to recognize certain types of intelligence. I happen to be liberal in most aspects, religious, and smarter than the average (that sounds arrogant, but...). I'm a statistical anomaly, according to this study. Yay for me!
  • Frink - 12 hours ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
    @Caliban - I'll give it a look, but I'm already skeptical at the sight of 9/11 Truthers and climate change denialist entries on the front page of the site.

    I'll try to give it a fair shake and analyze it from the position of a political scientist.
  • Caliban - 12 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
    Ronan, Pink Elephant-
    You can just as easily say these "anti evolutionary traits" are the push, or purpose of evolution. They are an expression of variability, and could thus be selected for both now and in the future, as conditions change.

    I would further suggest that this is what is actually happening, as these traits would tend to facilitate the process of acting collectively/cooperatively as a species to overcome the lethal variability of the natural world, which we are unlikely to do as individuals or even small groups(remember those human evolutionary bottlenecks).

    Forward together!

    And I mean that in an apolitical sense, and say it without a trace of sarcasm or irony.
  • Caliban - 12 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    @Frink-
    Interested to hear your opinion- I'm sure that you are familiar with at least some elements of the case presented.
  • poopiehead - 12 hours ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
    The debate should include whether this supposed higher intelligence is of any redeeming value to a society or simply an example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous. Hitler victimized an entire continent and killed millions in his search for a master race. But this idea originated in the USA and gained roots in California. Too much info for this post so just google "Roots of Nazi eugenics" But basically the smart elites decided to set the plan in motion.
    actually the faked and twisted science they used to advance their theories are eerily similar to the recent global warming scandal involving "Fake Science"
  • TheBigYin - 10 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    poopiehead, as if this flame war wasn't heated enough without introducing AGW too :)
  • bottomlesssoul - 10 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    Social constructs should be free to evolve and the more active the brain the faster they evolve
    You contradict yourself. 'Social' constructs involve more than one brain. And being openly gay- or any such lascivious or intrusive behavior- naturally annoys most people. But you don't care... Or maybe you do?

    Species occupy more than one individual but they evolve. Social constructs evolve.

    BTW, I don't care if people are openly heterosexual or otherwise.
  • MotleyBlue - 9 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.


    I am disappointed! Only 6 points? It should have been at least 25! Well, I assume that if the wording was a little bit different the IQ difference would have been huge. For example if the first one was 'I don't believe in any supernatural beings' instead of 'not at all religious' which might include deists as well as atheists, then it would filter only the atheists. If the second option was 'I believe the world is ~6000 years old' then it would get only the "elite" of the very religious people.

    Then yeah, that would have been amusing! :)
  • Objectivist - 8 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
    I don't understand why so many people here want to censor the article. It's not taking a stance on religion or anything really, it's merely presenting a conclusion drawn from statistical data. You can disagree with the conclusion but you cannot disagree with the statistical data.

    To tell you the truth I'm as surprised as anybody here, not about the conclusion and not about the data which it was based upon, but the way you people react to it. I'm going to go ahead and consider this paper factual, now you can choose to do whatever you want -- as long as you're not pushing to censor it, in which case you're actually fighting against liberalism and freedom.
  • Birger - 8 hours ago
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
    In a paleolithic society, the scarcity of resources and high mortality would make "conservative" values make sense; do not deviate from the well-known and tested, or you might eat something toxic or thirst to death as you walk into a stretch of desert without a water hole.

    In a more affluent society, we can afford to plan much longer ahead and maybe be more altruistic (I do not deny that "conservative" individuals have showed both consideration and generosity even in the impoverished old days). In regard to religion, if your situation is difficult, it will seem like a good investment to sacrifice to the spirits as a form of celestial insurance. When people feel secure and are affluent religious interest goes down -as can be seen in the Scandinavian countries.

    Since we no longer live in a zero-sum society, "Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values have become possible on a large scale which I personally welcome (although we of the older generation will get irritated sometimes
  • kawasakibiker - 6 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    I see by the comments we are all racing to protect our status as 'intelligent'. I must admit, I too was hoping for the best as I read Kanazawa's article....until my 5 year old boy told me it was a beautiful day outside and I should come out to play.
  • fourthrocker - 6 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
    Last I heard, the more intelligent you are the LESS likely you are to be religious. Religion is the opiate of the masses, even our forefathers believed that. Some paid lip service to religion to appease the masses because they know it is a cheap form of control, they even put 'in god we trust' on our money. BUT you will notice that they were careful to put in a clause to separate church and state in our government, guess they didn't trust god TOO much.
  • Skeptic_Heretic - 5 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
    can you please point to the methodologies that were flawed or perhaps a parallel study that shows a completely different conclusion?

    Seeing as you started with statements about Nazism I figured you'd be able to taste and see the idiocy of the article.

    Liberal Monogamous White Atheists are no more superior than Blonde Blue Eyed Germans.

    Every one cannot be judged by a statistical average of intellect, especially when the only marker was IQ, which has little to do with actual intellect.

    The reason why the hypothesis is false is two fold:
    1) limited sample size from an overly diverse population.
    2) The concept that what humans are doing is evolutionarily new is wrong.

    Atheism- fairly sure all animals practice atheism
    Nocturnalism- Seriously? Every teenager alive is partially nocturnal and has been for a LOOOOONG time.

    This is an ad hominem projection of what the researchers find to be ideal in man. Junk science at its worst.
  • Thiebs - 5 hours ago
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
    Seriously, people. Stop arguing over who's liberal, what's conservative, how socialists act, and especially stop defining yourselves by these labels. We're people. Most people on this site (I would hope) are intelligent by some or all measures. So think it out yourselves, don't just sign on with the closest label. Next time someone asks me what I am, I'm going to say "I'm a human being. Why, what are you, a fish?"
  • Frink - 4 hours ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
    Thiebs - We're not talking about labels. We're talking about political ideologies and governing systems. Do keep up.
  • marjon - 4 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    Seriously, people. Stop arguing over who's liberal, what's conservative, how socialists act, and especially stop defining yourselves by these labels. We're people. Most people on this site (I would hope) are intelligent by some or all measures. So think it out yourselves, don't just sign on with the closest label. Next time someone asks me what I am, I'm going to say "I'm a human being. Why, what are you, a fish?"

    What do you want to do to other people to get what you want? Are willing to gang up on others and take their stuff? Do you believe all individual human beings have the same inherent right to their lives and property?
    It is amazing what other humans will do to other humans if they have the power, opportunity and desire to do so.
  • marjon - 4 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    Fortunately, we do have some facts on our side. Since the I.R., corporate entities have rarely willingly self-regulated. If they did, there would be no need for government regulation.


    In a free market, corporations are regulated by their customers and competition.
    Today, governments protect corporations (now they own a few) from competition and from bad news. Recent issues with Toyota are similar to what happened with Ford and Firestone a few years ago.
    The simple solution to these issues is a free press and if a victim sues in a government court, all settlements must be made public. Toyota couldn't pay off one victim and demand silence, for example.
    Customers have real power and are the best regulators.
  • marjon - 4 hours ago
    • Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
    Marjon, honestly? We're aligning ourselves with McCarthy's authoritarian policies now? Son, let your credibility take a rest. It's suffered enough for one night.

    No, many here are aligned with those McCarthy was trying find.
    It is sad that 'intelligent' people are so stupid to believe socialism leads to a more prosperous society. Unless, they do know what they are doing. If so, the arrogance and hubris of the 'intelligent' are showing on this board.
  • Royale - 4 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    @fourthrocker, you have an insanely good point there. I think intelligent people have known this for awhile, and as you point out our forefathers did seem to realize what religion was. It's just like a band heading up on stage and saying, "this is the best crowd ever." You feed people what they want, and it's easier to get your way.
  • Objectivist - 3 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    Marjon, honestly? We're aligning ourselves with McCarthy's authoritarian policies now? Son, let your credibility take a rest. It's suffered enough for one night.

    No, many here are aligned with those McCarthy was trying find.
    It is sad that 'intelligent' people are so stupid to believe socialism leads to a more prosperous society. Unless, they do know what they are doing. If so, the arrogance and hubris of the 'intelligent' are showing on this board.

    Since when did liberalism become socialism? Last I heard liberalism was the exact opposite of socialism.

    I'm not referring to what political parties like to call themselves. I'm referring to the actual meaning of the words "liberalism" and "socialism", since this article was referring to "liberals" and not "republicans" or "democrats".
  • Gojira_the_Great - 3 hours ago
    • Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
    Why is everyone here discussing what liberalism, socialism and every other "ism" is? That isn't the point of the article. It was pointing out the correlation between how intelligence sways us as humans further from the path evolution has taken to bring us here. IE: Staying up at night, helping others outside our family unit (Liberalism), not believing in a god (Athiesm), etc. This article is not trolling, it is pointing out a fact that most of society doesn't see initially. How is this junk science? What proof do you have that "teenagers stay up, blah blah blah"? This is an article taking excerpts from a scientific journal. Because you disagree doesn't make it junk science, what proof is there to dispute the validity of intelligence counteracting the evolutionary process? I can postulate that the abundance of energy(oil, etc), modern medicine, and other technology is also counteracting evolution.
  • Skeptic_Heretic - 3 hours ago
    • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
    Since when did liberalism become socialism? Last I heard liberalism was the exact opposite of socialism.
    Liberalism and socialism have no bond. You can be both, one or the other, or neither. You can be a conservative socialist or a liberal socialist, etc.

    The statement above is in regards to fiscal or social liberalism? I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberalist. What does that say about my intellect? Am I dumber than most because I like saving money or am I smarter than most because I recognize all humans as humans? Again, a very silly vague article speaking to a junk science point of evolutionary preference for a minority group.

    Effectively non-populist propaganda.
  • Gojira_the_Great - 3 hours ago
    • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
    You have missed the point of the article entirely.

    Stuck in the clouds of your ego.

    What minority group are you referring?
  • Skeptic_Heretic - 2 hours ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    You have missed the point of the article entirely.

    Stuck in the clouds of your ego.

    What minority group are you referring?
    No the point was that the "research" indicates that Liberalism, Monogamy, and Atheism are novel evolutionary traits in humans and are an indicator of superior intellect. Neither of which is true on the whole or on average.

    Clouds of my ego, ha.

    The minority group would be liberalists. In the 3 major thought processes of social responsibility there is Liberalism, Conservatism, and Isolationism.

    Liberalism- spend the resources of society liberally
    Conservatism- spend the resources of society conservatively
    Isolationism- withdraw from society and maintain locally controlled resources

    The majority in the world is conservatism followed by liberalism followed by isolationism. Prior to the internet apparently isolationism was the majority,Evidenced by several UN social polls taken between 2001 and 2008 by the Integrated Social Policies group
  • marjon - 2 hours ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
    Liberalism- spend the resources of society liberally

    That is not what 'liberal' used to mean.

    I think the change occurred around the time of Teddy Roosevelt.
    The success of classical liberal politics and economics created great wealth in the USA.
    TR advocated from a more 'progressive' government approach injecting the power of the federal government into promoting the USA as an imperial power. There was the Spanish War with US becoming a mini-empire. The crash of 1907, saved by JP Morgan, inspired more gov intervention with the creation of the Fed and the income tax (only a very small percentage applied to only the very rich).
    After the brief depression in the 20s, 'progressive' had a bad rep so they called themselves 'liberal'.
    'Liberal' has earned a bad rep, now they call themselves 'progressive' again. But their failed policies haven't changed.
  • Skeptic_Heretic - 41 minutes ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    Marjon,

    Your idea of what liberal and progressive means in the context of the US is completely incorrect.

    The "progressive" movement never had a bad name, nor was it ever considered liberal until after the 30's when the civil rights movements started.

    Contrary to popular belief, MLK Jr. was a republican, and at the time the Republican party was considered the Progressive party partly due to the policies of TR but more due to the statements of "Societal Progress" and the expansion of rights.
  • Gandlaf - 28 minutes ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
    That was interesting. Although, I don't think it has much validity. I mean, it just shows that our society, right now, is more liberal, atheistic, and promiscuous. Maybe such people are simply adapting to their current surroundings, which would make them "evolutionary familiar," since self preservation is always the instinctive goal. It could also be an effect of what society sees, most news stations are liberal, most sitcoms advance promiscuity, and God has been denied discussion in schools and has become “politically incorrect.” So, if intelligence just means “doing that which is unfamiliar,” wouldn’t monogamous, religious, Conservatives be more intelligent?
  • kasen - 24 minutes ago
    • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
    How is this junk science?


    Failures of method: Questionnaires and interviews with loaded questions which appeal to common stereotypes. Presumably small sample size, also culturally biased. Reference to IQ tests as infallible and complete measuring tools. Gross statistical data being used in rudimentary models relying on unquantifiable variables.

    Failure of purpose: Think quantum observer effect. The act of measuring behaviour, especially by direct interaction, modifies it. This makes things hard with inanimate particles with limited degrees of freedom, how about something as volatile as human thought?

    Real science offers virtual certainty and useful information. Social science is epistemologically futile and offers little to no practical benefit. Seriously, someone try to refute this last bit. Something good for society that came from sociology.
  • JayK - 23 minutes ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    I think logic just jumped out the window, set itself on fire and then stabbed itself with a blunt stick as a political statement. How about you, Gandlaf?
  • JayK - 19 minutes ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    You know, kasen, you had some good points until your conclusion.
  • JayK - 6 minutes ago
    • Rank: not rated yet
    Kasen modified his post after I had posed originally concerning his "conclusions" to ask the question what is something good that came from sociology. Despite it's tone and vagueness, I'll attempt to answer:

    Advanced business practices, such as evolving program and project management. Understanding of class in societies and the psychological effects of class on economies. User interface design in regards to advanced technology and improvements on existing technology. Etc etc etc etc.

    How many examples would you like, how granular and would you define "good for society" if you don't think my examples are enough.

February 24, 2010 all stories

Comments: 127

3.5 /5 (57 votes)


  • hide
  • Related Stories




  • hide
  • Relevant PhysicsForums posts

  • Korean Court Strikes Down Penalties for RMT
    created Feb 23, 2010
  • What Happened to the Virtual Worlds Explosion Analysts Predicted?
    created Feb 23, 2010
  • Virtual World Integration and Social Networking
    created Feb 23, 2010
  • Privacy Issues in the Cloud Mirror Those in Virtual Worlds
    created Feb 23, 2010
  • Player Pays $330k (US) for Space Station in Project Entropia Universe
    created Feb 23, 2010
  • Pet psych
    created Feb 22, 2010
  • More from Physics Forums - Social Sciences

Other News

The mathematics behind a good night's sleep

Other Sciences / Mathematics

created 4 minutes ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Why can't I fall asleep? Will this new medication keep me up all night? Can I sleep off this cold? Despite decades of research, answers to these basic questions about one of our most essential bodily functions remain exceptionally ...


We work harder against lesser rivals, new study shows

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created 18 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (1) | comments 0 | with audio podcast

(PhysOrg.com) -- People will work harder -- about 30 percent harder -- against members of a lower status group because the prospect of losing to those we want to keep below us poses threats we don't want to face, according ...


Hollywood movies follow a mathematical formula

Hollywood movies follow a mathematical formula

Other Sciences / Mathematics

created Feb 19, 2010 | popularity 3.6 / 5 (22) | comments 13 | with audio podcast report

(PhysOrg.com) -- Hollywood movies have found a mathematical formula that lets them match the effects of their shots to the attention spans of their audiences.


Cultural history colors thought about bioethics, evolution

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created Feb 21, 2010 | popularity 4.3 / 5 (4) | comments 9

Cultural views of evolution can have important ethical implications, says a Duke University expert on theological and biomedical ethics. Because the popular imagination filters science through cultural assumptions about race, ...


Understanding anti-immigrant sentiment

Understanding anti-immigrant sentiment

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created Feb 19, 2010 | popularity 3.5 / 5 (11) | comments 8

(PhysOrg.com) -- Immigration is a long-simmering issue in the politics of many countries, including the United States. A 2007 Pew poll found that three-quarters of all U.S. citizens want to further restrict ...