"Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives" - Psychology Today Magazine

Originally posted by The Revenant
I found this article to be extremely interesting, with a simple, yet profound logic.

I tend to agree. Liberals ARE more intelligent than conservatives, as a general trend.

Astounding! Makes perfect sense. That's why women, minorities, and those on welfare are more likely to vote liberal and the rich aristocrats are more likely to vote conservative. It's all related to intelligence.

This guy Satoshi Kanazawa is such a genius. You should read his other published papers such as "Are All Women Essentially Prostitutes?" and "Why Are African-American Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”

The author of this article you're cheering was so cool up until the point that he was fired from Psychology Today for being a fringe lunatic. So, does this make him more intelligent than conservatives for writing such drivel?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Having an Evolutionary Psychologist judge what political systems have more merit is like having a fundamentalist Christian judge which Religion has the most merit. You couldnt have chosen a more biased source to "prove" your point.

Why? Can you explain what it is - for everyone here - that makes them so 'fringe'?

Let's see what happens.

The Rev.

reply to post by Captain Obvious


I suspected he's a creep but I didnt realize he's that much of a creep.

reply to post by the owlbear


And...this one is key. Which would you rather attend? A Ren Faire with chicks in corsets, big flagons of ale, and turkey legs...
Or a bunch of dudes in smelly clothes popping off rifles at each other? Though I will admit the guys that get into civil war re-enactment do have the better mustaches.

They both have their points.

In one I can oogle and possibly hook up...but have to watch my manners.

Whereas, in the other... I can be my foul mouthed self.

Actually I think that in reality, those were reversed.

Edit: Yikes! That can be taken out of context...

But I'll let it be. For the record..I like girls.

reply to post by Captain Obvious


Ok.

So we have established that Kanazawa is a total twit. Can we move past that please? Unless you wish to turn this into a right-wing massage-fest?

However, nobody has actually addressed the argument at hand, and refuted the subject intelligently. He who cant win an agrument, attacks the source.

Let's DEBATE the subject, not trash the (obviously) questionable source.

The Revenant.

Originally posted by The Revenant

1. Considering that the overwhelming majority of my family tests well above the 130 mark...hell, the 150 mark for that matter, and are uber conservatives, I call horseploppy.

2. It would depend on where the tests were done. Are geniuses rebels or sheeple?

3. Considering how many people buy into the thought that Christianity is predominantly Republican, and controls Republican expression, and that many scientists in ANY field have a mad-on for Christianity... (Re; vitrol of Stephen Hawking towards Christianity. His emotional stance gives him more of a relationship with God than most claimed Christians have.) *sigh* your predisoposition determines the way you gear tests. That alone makes it suspect. Release the test and release the tester's demographics, or you're full of it.

4. What demographic was excluded in this test? Someone's always excluded.

5. Intelligence isn't always a good thing. Ever heard of the phrase over-engineered? Put it to you this way: a lot people who are lower than the 90th percentile can figure out that 2+2=4. Put me, a borderline genius, on that question, I'll tell you every single time that 2+2 can = 10...and explain it, because I'm way beyond 2+2=4, but in most cases 4 is the answer we're in dire need of. So, when the answer for a whole nation is so obvious that a 2 year old should be shouting "the Emeperor's naked!", those who disagree are the over-engineerers in this equation, and they need to dumb it down a notch, and go for the obvious.

6. Expansion on 5: When we're intelligent educated folks, we're more likely to rely on our own intelligence far more than we should--we're arrogant. Which means that due to our lack of humility, we will not learn from history's mistakes--because we're better than history.

So, although I contest this study, Intelligence isn't everything, and the people who insist that intelligence should be are in fro a rude awakening. A very rude one.

Originally posted by The Revenant
So we have established that Kanazawa is a total twit. Can we move past that please? Unless you wish to turn this into a right-wing massage-fest?

I'm not making statements on who is more intelligent, just pointing out that your source is equivalent to the substance you find on the floor in a horse stall. Obviously you're either standing with him or we're just talking about your opinions now.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by the owlbear

 

And...this one is key. Which would you rather attend? A Ren Faire with chicks in corsets, big flagons of ale, and turkey legs...
Or a bunch of dudes in smelly clothes popping off rifles at each other? Though I will admit the guys that get into civil war re-enactment do have the better mustaches.

They both have their points.

In one I can oogle and possibly hook up...but have to watch my manners.

Whereas, in the other... I can be my foul mouthed self.

Actually I think that in reality, those were reversed.

As long as the lasses don't have some ponytailed basement dweller with them...you can hook up. Hell, I took my kids and wife and still got propositioned waiting in line for some fried cheese(gotta love the US of A for that one!)
Not that I would have, I guess I have some conservative natures after all!

I can respect that male bonding thing with the farts and cigars, though. Like I was saying it takes all types and we can find common ground

Originally posted by The Revenant
reply to post by Captain Obvious

 

Ok.

So we have established that Kanazawa is a total twit. Can we move past that please? Unless you wish to turn this into a right-wing massage-fest?

However, nobody has actually addressed the argument at hand, and refuted the subject intelligently. He who cant win an agrument, attacks the source.

Let's DEBATE the subject, not trash the (obviously) questionable source.

The Revenant.

Sorry, rev, I've gotten off topic. My bad. I do like your "massage-fest" comment. If that were in the states, it might happen in an airport bathroom with conservative house reps involved.

Originally posted by Captain Obvious
I'm not making statements on who is more intelligent, just pointing out that your source is equivalent to the substance you find on the floor in a horse stall. Obviously you're either standing with him or we're just talking about your opinions now.

A source is a source. Strong or weak, it's the subject matter that's important in this case.

Do you think that the arguments put forward make sense when discussing left / right intelligence?

Or are you going to sit on the fence and shout "Yah-Boo" all day?

The Revenant.

Liberalism: Ideas SO GOOD, they have to be mandatory.

"The more liberal you are, the smarter you are" ?? So liberals have everything correct? There's no give and take?

The point I'm trying to make is that neither of the parties has it right. If you were to pick and choose between the 2 parties and make a 3rd party based on those ideas, that would probably be considered the 'smartest' option.

For example, I am socially very Liberal but mostly fiscally Conservative.

reply to post by The Revenant

Are you kidding?

The educational system is the fricken liberal pope. It's god speak. Every limp wristed bleeding heart has a natural affinity for sitting at tables, in classrooms, TALKING about doing something or WRITING something, but doing nothing about it. It's their habitat, and most anyboyd not already brainwashed is aware of this. My hypothetical explanation for whatever gobbledegook is referenced in the link - god knows the internet is full of this sh** - is that smart people end up doing well in school, thus, they gradually become brainwashed by the spoon fed liberal diet.

If schools were used to teach general education, not to preach liberalism. Aww, I can dream...

Stop assigning to the grandiose what can instead be answered by simple indoctrination.

And another thing. A recent study came out that concluded educated people tend to be more religious than uneducated people. That to me says a lot of things, and makes my ears perk up.

This cracks me up.

If you buy the dogma of either political party I'd say that your intelligence is limited.

When you ask people who truly believe the dogma questions about why one of their programs doesn't work they seem baffled.

The same author:

more intelligent men are significantly more likely ever to have paid for sex. Intelligent men are more likely to have had sex with a prostitute than less intelligent men
.

intelligent men are more likely to recognize and comprehend prostitution, and to have sex with prostitutes.

Source

So not only are liberals more intelligent but because they are intelligent they are also more likely to pay for sex.

OK...whatever...

Originally posted by Captain Obvious

Originally posted by The Revenant
I found this article to be extremely interesting, with a simple, yet profound logic.

I tend to agree. Liberals ARE more intelligent than conservatives, as a general trend.

Astounding! Makes perfect sense. That's why women, minorities, and those on welfare are more likely to vote liberal and the rich aristocrats are more likely to vote conservative. It's all related to intelligence.

This guy Satoshi Kanazawa is such a genius. You should read his other published papers such as "Are All Women Essentially Prostitutes?" and "Why Are African-American Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?”

The author of this article you're cheering was so cool up until the point that he was fired from Psychology Today for being a fringe lunatic. So, does this make him more intelligent than conservatives for writing such drivel?

You're absolutely right. Quoting you just to make sure others see it!

Here is his wiki:
en.wikipedia.org...

The same author is also a racist:

“Nor can the race difference in intelligence (and the positive association between intelligence and physical attractiveness) account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among women. Black women are still less physically attractive than nonblack women net of BMI and intelligence. Net of intelligence, black men are significantly more physically attractive than nonblack men.”

Source

Originally posted by Wildbob77
This cracks me up.

If you buy the dogma of either political party I'd say that your intelligence is limited.

When you ask people who truly believe the dogma questions about why one of their programs doesn't work they seem baffled.

Now...that's not very nice either. Saying that people are of limited intelligence if they ascribe to one camp or another when the public is barraged by this vs. That. We are not all blessed with the intelligence to see things for how they REALLY are...smile and nod like you would to a kid mopping at McDonald's...they have the vote too.

All this shows is that the people that this article considers intelligent are more likely to have more Secondary education and the Liberal brainwashing that controlls our colleges and universities. Plain and simple.

reply to post by Heartisblack


being open and close minded has nothing to do with IQ. furthermore i don't see how liberals are more open minded than conservatives as they tend to stick with their beliefs and reject opposing views just as vehemently. those who are open minded are in the very middle of the road.

the article is quite biased.

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.

yeah, its definitely because we care, and not because we're getting free money handouts(since liberals get such a kick out of paying taxes, you can pay mine for me. you won't? oh, i thought you cared ) *cough* that obviously skewed definition aside (notice how it implies that conservatism is the opposite of "genuine concern") 11.4 IQ points isn't a very large difference for a complete span. my IQ is around 120ish, maybe a bit higher, and i'm conservative. you can have a larger drop in IQ from having negative feelings than the entire span that is used as proof. kind of silly.

another problem is the test was done on younger people. isn't it interesting that the majority of the age group they tested doesn't pay taxes, yet that group wants to increase taxes "because they genuinely care about their fellow man".

now for the bombshell: conservatives give more to charity than liberals. if liberals have such a hard-on for altruistic behavior as the article says, then why is this so? in the article he tries to argue that this supports his position, but its a clear contradiction of his original definition. liberals genuinely care about their fellow man, yet they willingly give less to them.

this article is from the same person who says atheists and liberals are smarter. he is himself atheist and liberal. no conflict of interest there. at all.

They [citizens] cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers. This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

opposing higher taxes definitely means i hate blacks, because that's the ONLY reason i would oppose higher taxes. it has nothing to do with economic principles /sarcasm

this man who wrote the article is a psychologist, he should find healthier ways to deal with his self-esteem issues than writing propaganda pieces that are a giant pat on the back.