Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 69 times
Topic started on 25-2-2010 @ 10:39 AM by constantwonder
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 Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."

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.

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."


www.physorg.com...

I found this article to be an excellent read. I had no idea that being athiest or liberal was a denotation of intellegence. It is hard to believe that anyone who aligns themselves with a particular political view is intellegent.

I had always imagined that the more intellegence would lead to a more moderate open minded view. Perhaps more exacting in their search for corroborating but less inclined to align to any particular system.

I found the part about waking later and staying up later really described myself. Though I have a day job I'm fortunate enough that being on time is not an issue. So i can get away with staying up until all hours of the night. I had always thought I just had my bio clock out of whack.

It does however make sence that persons of higher intellegence are more likely to be athiest. I believe though that it shows an even greater intellegence if you are agnostic. Now i don't mean a waffler that believs one day then not the next, but a true agnostic who accepts that we just don't know.

Anyway its a great read. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.



[edit on 25-2-2010 by constantwonder]


reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 11:11 AM by DeathTribble
I couldn't find a direct link in your post, so have taken the liberty of posting one here:

www.physorg.com...

Thank you for the interesting find. While I tend to look askance at papers which generally confirm my world view while denigrating others (the I'm smarter than you" type of arguments), the finding that correlates intelligence with liberalism has been replicated multiple times over in various studies. Now, that isn't to say that there are no smart conservatives. Obviously, there are many. Statistics always breaks down at the individual level becuase people are not widgets created from a blueprint w/ limited areas of potential variation. However, as trends go, some truth can be surmised when enough studies are analyzed together. The tendency for night owls to score higher on IQ tests is a new finding I think, and would be an interesting area of future study. It certainly conforms to my personal experience.

For those interested in this area of research, more information can be found in one of the most fascinating things I have ever read on the 'net. It is a free e-book from a psychology professor in Canada who has studied the personality type he dubbed the "authoritarians". This study is based on a life time of research on this group and was a fascinating read (for me) from start to finish, and gave additional insight into social psychology's most infamous tests such as the Stanford (Milgram) series on authority (aka the "shock the monkey" experiment). After reading this piece, I was able to understand what had gone on over Bush's term for more.
members.shaw.ca...

Again OP, thanks for the heads up!


reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 11:27 AM by Clark Savage Jr.
Kanazawa , it should be noted, is controversial in many regards among his peers, particularly in his insistence on equating IQ results with actual intelligence primarily where racial groups are concerned. I advice reading some of his other works before deciding validity on this issue.






www.guardian.co.uk...


As for similar findings, it is almost impossible to expect a clear consensus when dealing with ideologies as personally subjective as conservative/liberal value systems simply because most people exhibit both traits or they vary over the course of a lifetime. Attempting to encapsulate and rank a mindset based on what is societally and environmentally dictated is a stretch in my opinion.


reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 12:21 PM by tgidkp
this research falls right in line with Ken Wilber's spiral dynamics. at each new level of the spiral, the lower belief systems are included and superceded. conservative (conventional) is represented by the color BLUE, and liberal is represented by GREEN.

so, in response to the poster that says that we should expect to find intelligent conservatives, i say "no". in order to be truly GREEN, you must have completed your BLUE stage. also, to those that think that liberalism is the most novel social concept to have been created, it is time to let liberalism go and get on board with turqoise and yellow.







i buck conventional belief systems all to hell, and i have a fun time doing it.

i used to be ashamed of my differences....until i realised that shame is simply another reinforcement technique of those whom wish to control my behavior.


reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 12:22 PM by xFey_Scarlettx
reply to post by smyleegrl



Well I suppose asking questions about religion could broaden your scope, but it's not that you'd have to be interested in joining any religion.

If you see what I mean..


reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 12:26 PM by smyleegrl
reply to post by xFey_Scarlettx



Yes, I agree.

I grew up Christian, and now consider myself Christian Agnostic. I know its a made up term, but I still tend to reflect the basic Christian values taught to me while doubting/questioning/searching for a higher being.

I actually find comparative religions highly interesting.


reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 12:36 PM by Clark Savage Jr.
reply to post by pplrnuts



I can possibly agree with the stats you mention, but I am very interested in exactly how you attribute them to being caused by a societal value system. That would seem a premature assumption.

You mentioned you changed your own value systems at a point in the past----are you saying that you improved your ability to perceive and process information because of that change? Could I, conversely, become more intelligent if I vacate the Southeast or change my ideological views?

My hypothetical questions are examples of the fluid nature of constantly evolving societal perceptions that in my opinion make such a study as posted highly suspect and more likely to be agenda driven rather than scientifically valid.

I say this is, still, deserving of more research because parts of the material are in fact thought provoking.


Overall, interesting post.



reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 12:40 PM by Logarock
Originally posted by xFey_Scarlettx
reply to
post by smyleegrl



Well I suppose asking questions about religion could broaden your scope, but it's not that you'd have to be interested in joining any religion.

If you see what I mean..


Yes I see what you mean.

But let me just hazard to say the writer is an atheist. See what I mean? He sort of just talked himself into a circle chazzzzing his "tale".

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Logarock]


reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 01:11 PM by ANOK
I would disagree that the idea of considering and caring for other people, or even strangers, is new.

I'd say the opposite is true that over the last 30-40 years we have become more self-serving and insular.

Before consumerism and the idea of being personally 'successful' become the rage people were far more community conscious. We hardly know our neighbors anymore.

The media had created an atmosphere of fear in our communities due to it's sensationalizing of the news (which makes it appear to be more of an issue than it really is). We didn't used to fear strangers on the street. Before media created stereotypes we couldn't tell who to be fearful of.

'Liberalism' we have now maybe a new thing in our generation, or the last few generations, in America, but it's not new to our history, and in some countries it's how they live. Go to the far east sometime, and you'll see a huge difference in community.

I also think that we are paranoid, and believe in God etc., through conditioning not natural Human traits. If there wasn't someone, e.g. the media, telling us to fear God, or whatever, we wouldn't care less.
Maybe thousands of years ago when were still ignorant, but certainly not in recent history. If there wasn't a Bible we would have no concept of Hell to have fear about.

It's Human manipulation in society, for their own benefits, that create the fear and divisions in our communities. This is why we ended up with a government and 'state system' (the control of one class of people by another).

It's not Human nature, it's human exploitation and coercion.


reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 02:01 PM by truthquest
reply to post by constantwonder



The idea doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Atheism is unreasonable and liberalism is immoral. So, why would "smart" people subscribe to such theories? Perhaps their brain is excessively wired for logic, and it has been short-changed in the emotional reasoning / common sense / gut instinct department.


reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 02:10 PM by SeekerofTruth101
Originally posted by truthquest
reply to
post by constantwonder



The idea doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Atheism is unreasonable and liberalism is immoral. So, why would "smart" people subscribe to such theories? Perhaps their brain is excessively wired for logic, and it has been short-changed in the emotional reasoning / common sense / gut instinct department.


I guess it depends on what you define as 'smart' people - the mainstream rapacious greed filled types or someone in tune with his/her environment.

But what do I know? I'm just just some dumb shmuck with a nick in annonymous cyberpace, a jumble of readable or semi-readable alphabets called text.


reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 02:15 PM by ANOK
reply to post by truthquest



How is liberalism immoral?

Please explain that one. Do you even know what liberalism is?

Doesn't the Bible talk about the evils of selfishness and the good of community? Didn't God give us free will? Doesn't he teach to love thy neighbour, not what they can do for you?

Humans are not supposed to be tied up in your morality play, who decides what's moral and what isn't, you?

The smartest people very rarely follow the mainstream version of politics and religion simply because WE can see it's all lies and the agenda behind it. You have fallen for the control, you are not a threat to the PTB, you let them control and exploit you, and you don't even realise your point of view, and life, isn't your own but the product of your social conditioning.

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds." Bob Marley.

[edit on 2/25/2010 by ANOK]


reply posted on 25-2-2010 @ 02:16 PM by Grimur
reply to post by constantwonder



S&F
Its easy to see why really. I know a lot of people who are intelligent by rote, however I prefer to work and socialize with people who tend to creatively problem solve. That old cliche "think outside the box" is for people who are trapped with in it.

These ideas could be indirectly correlated or derived from the concepts Lao Tzu discusses in Tao Te Ching (Dao de Jing depending on translation).
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Pokemon discovered in Venezuela
  Posted 14 days ago with 47 member flags
89-Year-Old Man Develops Bladeless Bird-Friendly Wind Turbine
  Posted 11 days ago with 45 member flags
Amazing snowflake images that you have never seen before.
  Posted 14 days ago with 44 member flags
Energy Solutions THEY don\'t want you to know about
  Posted 14 days ago with 35 member flags
Does this video show a working self propelled magnetic engine?
  Posted 7 days ago with 31 member flags
Viruses: alive or not?
  Posted 11 days ago with 30 member flags
NASA reveals secrets it has hidden on the Curiosity rover.
  Posted 17 days ago with 29 member flags