From CNN:
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.
The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people’s behaviors come to be.
I’m semi-liberal and totally atheist, so maybe my IQ is on the order of 3 to 5.5 points higher? Or do I get extra points for being semi-liberal? Men who are sexually exclusive tend to be smarter than those who aren’t, which shows that statistically people like me should be smarter than Pick Up Artists. Although if you look at what I spend on diapers and the like, some PUAs would have a good argument to refute that. I know I refute that every time I give the clerk at Babies R’ Us my credit card.
A professor not affiliated with the study says that he believes that the preferences have something to do with wanting to show superiority or elitism. He may have a point. I think lots of liberals are elitist. Granola-eating tree huggers tend to have a snobbery about them that even rich Republicans don’t. It’s amazing, really. As much as I hate to admit it, atheists tend to be more elitist than evangelical Bible thumpers–although to be fair, there are more thinking and reading atheists than Bible thumpers. This is not to say that all Bible thumpers are non-thinking–C.S. Lewis was brilliant–but there are many more thinking atheists (which is basically what the study confirmed).
Related posts:
But here is an...
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
“Atheist?” Check! “Democrat?” Well, I’m a registered Independent, though I vote mostly for the jackass party, so three-quarters check.
And I DO happen to stop by the BigWoWo blog, so that must make me a virtual Mensa. Yep, this article makes sense to me.
I try not to take too much stock in these studies. High IQ’s don’t necessarily mean that a particular group has an advantage over everyone else in figuring out life—political leanings aside. You had what Halberstam called “the best and the brightest” of the Kennedy administration and look how deeply entrenched we got into Viet Nam as the years went by. Robert McNamara, with all his smarts, all his academic analyses and war gaming theories and technology, couldn’t see that this was a quagmire. High IQs don’t take into account one’s stubborn pride or refusal to admit wrong doing.
In regards to atheism, can’t say I suscribe to that school of thought. I don’t adhere to organized religion either, though. Each person has to find his/her own path as to what life means.
I had no idea libertarians had higher IQs than non-libertarians. I consider myself less libertarian and more “gimme something that won’t break”, but this study will probably really help the Tea Party movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism).
Eric,
“Liberal” and “libertarian” have the same first five letters, but they’re different words. The article says, “people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs.” Most libertarians identify as libertarians, not liberals.
Are you now identifying yourself as “liberal?” (The Tea Party people certainly don’t.) If so, I can now say that I’ve helped you see the light.
The study was done in London. The Wiki article I linked to says it all, but this one’s more helpful with that confusing word “liberal”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_Europe
“In general, liberalism in Europe is a political movement that supports a broad tradition of individual liberties and constitutionally-limited and democratically accountable government.”
The word “liberal” in America is different, but only as of recent. Do you think the study meant it in the American sense? Or European sense? Maybe they translated it for Americans, whereas the original study said something like “Social Democrats and Atheism linked to higher IQ.”
“Do you think the study meant it in the American sense? Or European sense?”
The American sense, without a doubt.
The article says, “Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found…”
I’m giving you a hard time. I wonder if people who are ex-American liberals still have high IQs?! Can’t be! What the hell is an atheist anyway? Does the category include people who believe all humans are created equal even if their IQ tests say otherwise?
IQ studies are fun aren’t they? Unless they discover something bad, like differences in racial IQs. Then, no more fun. To be fair I trust this IQ test about as much as an IQ test that shows blacks have lower IQs than whites.
I think there are bright conservatives. Actually, I think there are some very bright conservatives. My guess though is that there probably are a lot of them who turn the critical thinking skills just to have something to believe. I think these are the ones driving it down.
By the way, speaking of anti-libertarian ideas, the U.S. government may require a new safety mechanism on cars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/business/global/03toyota.html?hp
You say in the article that a lot of liberals are elitist. I almost agree, except a lot of elitists consider themselves liberal saviors and many are atheists because they don’t want to be grouped with rednecks. But like it or not they’re now spiritual in other new ways, like they believe in metaphysical “natural rights” or when people die their spiritual dreams come true forever, or that animals have souls. When you remove something as huge as “God” from your religious philosophy you end up filling the void with a buffet of other stuff.
I’m totally non-religious, but it’s been my experience that “metaphysical” Asian religions just make more sense than the dominant religion (Christianity) in this country. Asian religions rely on thought, rather than just “belief” or “faith.” If you read, for example, Robert Thurman, he has a very logical explanation for why he’s a Buddhist.
Someone is going to bring up the Jews, so let’s hit that one up right away–I think many reformed Jews are encouraged to question Scripture, and many become “atheist,” even though they still identify with the culture.
I’m not sure where your ideas of the metaphysical and logical stand, but it sounds like you’re trying to insinuate that Asian religions are more “logical” than Christianity, which would fit in nicely to this whole IQ study. Like Christianity, Asian superstitions (there are more superstitions than I can count) are ways to rationalize a complex reality. Superstitions make no more logical sense to me than blaming the gays for 911 or earthquakes on Haitians.
RE Jews: they score high on IQ tests, as do Asians! But this line of thinking won’t do big WOWO’s overarching thesis much good, because as soon as you look at IQ tests along racial lines… well, let’s just say you should read the high scores and stop there.
Eric,
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Have you ever read Christian apologists? Logic almost becomes a crime. This is why whenever evolution comes up in the schools, you rarely see Buddhists taking a stand against it. Buddhism is more logical.
I think this was the book I read by a Westerner on Buddhism:
http://www.amazon.com/Infinite-Life-Robert-Thurman/dp/1573222674
The key difference between Western religions and Eastern religions is that it’s not about belief. It’s more of a tradition, which eventually becomes a worldview. Rationalization isn’t so much of a concern because they really don’t rationalize anything, although they think logically about how the world is. Actually, as someone who likes to go against the grain of popular thought, you might find Buddhism interesting.
Oops, looks like Eric and I cross-posted.
Eric, there’s more than one thing that influences test scores and the like. Do you think it could be cultural? Maybe average Jews and average Asians having money could influence test scores? There’s gotta be a reason why I’m already spending money on my 3.5 year old kid’s education!
In the other direction, I don’t think Asian men are more shy. It’s just cultural.
This is an interesting discussion, and I think it overlaps with Playing the Dozens and Working on Your Mack:
http://www.bigwowo.com/2010/03/playing-the-dozens-and-working-on-your-mack/comment-page-1/#comment-19886
IQ is basically a test. Within a culture, it measures…something. I can’t really see a reason for liberals to score higher than conservatives unless they come from different cultures. Or unless liberals on AVERAGE are slightly smarter.
Across cultures, however, there’s bias, and there are also socio-economic factors that come into play. If you measured Asian men on extemporaneous speaking, we might come in lower. Not because we’re naturally less oratorically gifted, but simply because our culture has yet to develop those gifts across the culture.
OMG, an “I’m giving you a hard time” anarcho-capitalist Randian Buddist douchebag. Oh no!!! The world will surly explode when that happens.
OMG, an “I’m giving you a hard time” anarcho-capitalist Randian Buddhist douchebag. Oh no!!! The world will surly explode when that happens.
I studied Buddhism for a year or so on my own. I liked it, but it’s hardly against the popular grain because it’s so standard among academics to be inspired by this or that Asian tradition. They loop the stuff they like about Buddhism and other mystical thought into one package. The best name I can find is “New Thought” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought):
“The New Thought Movement or New Thought is a spiritual movement which developed in the United States during the late 19th century and emphasizes metaphysical beliefs. It consists of a loosely allied group of religious denominations, secular membership organizations, authors, philosophers, and individuals who share a set of metaphysical beliefs concerning the effects of positive thinking, the law of attraction, healing, life force, creative visualization and personal power.[1] It promotes the ideas that “Infinite Intelligence” or “God” is ubiquitous, spirit is the totality of real things, true human selfhood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, all sickness originates in the mind, and ‘right thinking’ has a healing effect.”
This is big in LA and other major cities (“The Secret”!), big in academia, big in elite circles, big in the environmental movement, and it’s why Buddhism is so hip with the kids. “Atheism” associates with “New Thought” since the two groups share the same exact political ideals: down with the Christians and Republicans, no matter your creed. So New Thought is not against the grain at all, but right along with it. I only go against the grain here because I care for this stuff no more than I care for Christianity or Republicanism. I go with the grain on most other things though, like appreciating chocolate and good weather.
Lots of Buddhists I’ve known are so snobby about their open minded enlightenment that it’s laughable. And since they’re so busy hating Christians and Republicans they tend to be chronically upset and stressed out.
I don’t think Buddhism is that big, even among academics and nouveau hippies. It’s cool to say you’re influenced by it, but how many actually study it to see what it’s really about?
That’s why I think you’d like it. Much of it is about acceptance and happiness. I’ve not met any serious Buddhists who hate Christians and Republicans, although I’d probably agree that Christianity is incompatible with all other religions since it claims to have the one and only truth.