Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences

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]

Why? Because intelligent people can look at social trends and think 'no, I see what's going on here, I don't want to be a part of that'..

That was a great read, giving you a star and a flag for this!

I think intelligence means you're less likely to be led, or won't allow yourself to be led, so you can create new things to amuse yourself, that from the outside can appear to be 'against the grain' or 'weird' to more closed minded folk.

Well I fit like two thirds of the description, however I'm not atheist, but like wise... I would never describe myself as very religous, but I'd describe myself as spiritual, which is in fact, different than religious, I beleive there are things we cannot know, but it doesn't make them impossibilities, I look at all angles, making me more analytical, so I guess that still counts? I am by definition liberal...always have been since I was very young...yay...I am perrrrdy smart!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2010 by ldyserenity]

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!

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.

EXCELLENT, this article is very true. In the USA alone, one can pull up the state statistics to confirm this. State statistics reveal that the LEAST educated people are those found to live in the SOUTHERN region of the country. The MOST educated people exist in the NORTHERN regions. The south is extremely religious, and conservative, while the majority of the north is the opposite. In my own personal experience I began as a conservative person of the Christian faith. Through dedicated and exhaustive studies and educating myself for over a decade, I have evolved from those views. Of course just like everyone who is religious, I myself at the time could not be convinced otherwise that religion was nothing but a bunch of silly superstitious, man made stories that breed nothing but division and is counter-productive to mankind. NOTHING will change such ridiculous beliefs other then LOTS of study. Education is key to breaking free from that silliness that is in reality just an adult Santa Claus. Excellent thread OP.

Despite the fact I can't see this thread being in Sci and Tech. I plainly see a disbelief in God as a mark against anyones intelligence. Any claim that God does not exist, gets an automatic five marks against. No one can sensibly make that claim. Not Dawkins, no one.
I very simply describe myself as a follower of Jesus Christ.



[edit on 25-2-2010 by randyvs]

Very interesting read.

I love staying up late and getting up late, I can't wait to send a copy of this article to my Dad. He used to say I was lazy, now I can just say I''m smart.

On a more serious note, I do have a question to ask. Could the study results actually be backward? I mean, that asking questions about religion, etc. actually makes you more intelligent?

S&F from me just 'cause I can't wait to see what my dad has to say

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 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 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 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.

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]

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 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 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 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).

Fair enough, let's explore.



Ok, why is it unreasonable?



OK, but again why? Also keep in mind that the political spectrum acts on 3 axis rather than 1, but for the sake of this discussion let's just concentrate on 2 - economic and social



I think finding out the prior 2 questions will result in responses that might shed light on this issue.

So, now that things are in place, let's play ball.

Peace
KJ

Ye this is a great post -

I grew up following Christian beliefs but never went to church and couldn't call myself or my family aetheists as we never talked about or discussed or even give religion an inch in our lives.

But over the last 2 years, funny enough as I joined up on ATS I have looked at religion and just wondered where it has all come from. I am interested in every religion, but still i dont follow any of them.

Its funny but in honesty the more I read and wonder about religion, the more I wonder about its beginnings more. I dont believe in any religion today, but I would rather understand its beginnings and its needs.

I do think that religion come from a time where people at some stage where going through a traumatic time or a problem on a grand scale, and at that time the the event that created this traumatic time was percieved as a force from above, to explain its harshness, and thats where religion started from.

But soon become a way for higher classes to distance themselves from the everyday laws of the lower classes, and give themselves a higher position in society.

Loved the website where that article came from, will be going there a lot more.

Thanks

[edit on 25/2/10 by multichild]

[edit on 25/2/10 by multichild]