Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

[Wargle]

in response to the topic title: You know what...? I am not surprised.

I pretty much agree with this.

Even though I bet people will argue this because it will make them look stupid. The #1 complaint will probably be 'The results are fixed'

 

[Autumn]

Now I'm imagining an argument like "What atheists aren't smarter than us, they haven't accepted God and Jesus how in heaven can they be smarter than us?!?!?!?!?!"

 

[1. Luftballon]

now you've turned this thread into atheism/agnosticism/whatever vs. abrahamic religions. :(

 

[Minish]

Also, wouldn't one think that agnosticism would be linked to higher IQ as well...? Especially since many atheists actually are agnostics, whyyyy does everyone always forget the agnostics. ;_;

 

[Butterfree]

I despise evolutionary psychology. All this "this would have benefited our ancestors, so that's why we do X!" has no basis in actual science of any kind (I don't understand why psychology is more of a science than sociology; at least sociologists don't make up "scientific explanations" for things in the form of just-so stories).



It baffles me how many people here demand proof in a religious debate and find it ridiculous to believe in something for which no proof can be offered, and yet accept the evolutionary approach to psychology (I assume) because "it makes sense". Accepting that the world was flat once made sense!

The study's results are interesting, the conclusions drawn from it are absolute rubbish, imo.

Eh, there are a lot of very dubious things that claim to be evolutionary psychology, but evolutionary psychology as a whole is not at all inherently unscientific. For as long as there exists such a thing as genetic dispositions towards certain behaviours or personality traits, people will evolve to perform advantageous behaviours over disadvantageous ones and have advantageous traits over disadvantageous ones; that's just how genes work.

What's unscientific is saying "Because this would theoretically be advantageous in X way, that's how all or most people actually are", and what's morally repulsive is saying "Because this is evolutionarily advantageous, it's okay, we can't help acting that way and this is how things should be." It could be theoretically evolutionarily advantageous for a man to have a genetic predisposition towards rape, but that does not make rape right or okay and it is not an excuse for rapists, because in addition to genetic predispositions we have intelligent minds and free wills that by now pretty much nullify all but the most trivial of our genetic predispositions. Even if something was evolutionarily advantageous in our ancestors, that has practically no meaning for people today and shouldn't be treated as such. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with speculating about how certain basic behaviours or traits might have evolved in our ancestors; we just have to realize that it does not and should not have any real sociological meaning to us today.

This in particular I can't really buy as having much of anything to do with evolution, though, simply because liberalism and atheism and sexual exclusivity having the meaning they do in the social context of today is a pretty new phenomenon that I doubt could really have been evolved. Them being correlated with intelligence today does not mean there is such a thing as genetic predispositions towards liberalism and atheism; I'd wager this is much more about individuals with a higher IQ being likely to seek a higher education, which would both allow them to understand principles such as evolution better and be likely to have them end up in largely liberal and atheist company and be exposed to those memes.

 

[Zuu]

Also, wouldn't one think that agnosticism would be linked to higher IQ as well...? Especially since many atheists actually are agnostics, whyyyy does everyone always forget the agnostics. ;_;

Probably because agnosticism isn't quite as "unconventional" or bold as adopting atheism, even though agnosticism is probably the most logical stance. I'm an agnostic, but I still identify as an atheist because it makes it clear that people can't shove their Jesus shit on me.

 

[1. Luftballon]

you know what else people forget all the time?

apatheism.

my spellchecker doesn't even think it's an actual word.

 

[Zuu]

the problem I see with apatheism is that, if the theists have their way, the question of a god/gods WILL be relevant for you so meh.

 

[1. Luftballon]

eh, I'd imagine a reaction more along the lines of "I don't care, stfu."

 

[#1 bro]

it's kind of silly to not care if x religion is right or not - i mean, supposedly your choice of religion dictates whether you spend the rest of eternity suffering or in bliss so... you should probably care about that

 

[Crazy Linoone]

Didn't you ever think that there was a reason that, in US state IQ surveys, states like Massachusetts, California, and Oregon always do really well, while states like Louisiana, Georgia, and Alabama always do really badly? (I'm not bad-mouthing all people from those states - I'm just making a point.)

I would imagine that would be the fault of the poor education standards in those states.

Sadly, California is not known for its great education standards. It's even worse than (of all things) Louisiana. In fact, California is so bad that people have to put more writing/reading sections as well as an essay in the SAT just because too many Californians are too good at figuring out the answer to questions such as "if newt is to lampshades, then cheese is to _____" but fail in college because they can't write.

Yeah.

 

[opaltiger]

Seconding what Butterfree said. Evolutionary psychology has a ridiculously unfair reputation. Additionally I think most of the absurd "studies" in evolutionary psychology are the work of only one or two people.

Also!

 

[FluffyGryphon]

Woo. Yet another study that gives a certain group of people the chance to inflate their mental testicles and toss them around. Liberals and conservatives are two sides to one particular brand of moron. Athiests that broadcast as such are of a similar brand of moron, as well. Why are we feeding theses people? About twelve different news sites are turning this into 'top news'... I have to admit, however, the 'male sexual exclusivity' research just makes me giggle.

Mind you, you also get the occasional science-minded person that sees this study for what it is and just studies it with unopinionated fascination.

 

[Effigy of the Forgotten]

Woo. Yet another study that gives a certain group of people the chance to inflate their mental testicles and toss them around. Liberals and conservatives are two sides to one particular brand of moron. Athiests that broadcast as such are of a similar brand of moron, as well.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here - that people who label themselves are morons? That people who are open about their beliefs and values are morons? People are morons generally?

 

[1. Luftballon]

Not really sure what you're trying to say here - that people who label themselves are morons? That people who are open about their beliefs and values are morons? People are morons generally?

I say yes to all of the above.

and you know what? it's probably a good thing, too.

 

[Jetx]

If everyone is a moron, then no-one is.

 

[Harlequin]

Also, wouldn't one think that agnosticism would be linked to higher IQ as well...? Especially since many atheists actually are agnostics, whyyyy does everyone always forget the agnostics. ;_;

Agnostics are atheists. Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in God [or supernatural deities]; that fairly accurately describes agnostics, too, who also don't believe in God. They might think "I don't knowwwww" or "we can't know", but it is unarguably a lack of belief in a supreme creator being.

[That, and I highly doubt anything is a complete atheist who refuses to even consider for one moment the idea of a supernatural deity. It's extremely unlikely and a ridiculous proposition, of course, but if someone presented me with some cool evidence I might have to change my mind.]

 

[FluffyGryphon]

Not really sure what you're trying to say here - that people who label themselves are morons? That people who are open about their beliefs and values are morons? People are morons generally?

I say yes to all of the above.

and you know what? it's probably a good thing, too.

It is a good thing.

I'm not speaking labels, no. I was making a particularly scathing comment toward the study while generalizing at the same time. The study did it too, afterall. The term 'liberal' and 'conservative' in the actual study had absolutely nothing to do with the political leanings of liberals and conservatives.

Now, I know not all liberals and conservatives are morons (politically speaking), but a vast majority are. And I just don't like most atheists because in my experiences, they don't just say they are atheists, they have to mention it at every possible opportunity.

Oh by the way, you silly people left this out:

Vegetarianism, while not strongly associated with IQ in this study, has been shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, Kanazawa said. This also fits into Bailey's idea that unconventional preferences appeal to people with higher intelligence, and can also be a means of showing superiority.

Hmm. You know what that means...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6180753.stm

If everyone is a moron, then no-one is.

I wasn't really implying that, since you know, Athiests, liberals, and conservatives hardly make up everyone. Interesting proposition, though. I like it.


Sometimes I just like watching the world burn. :>

 

[Butterfree]

Isn't 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' generally set up as a dichotomy - you're pretty much supposed to be one or the other? Maybe you could argue for some extreme middle ground in between, but to say it's moronic to have any position but the middle ground is, um, kind of moronic in itself.

Also, it's inevitable that most atheists will seem to be the people who tell you about it all the time, because you won't actually know that the rest are atheists too.

 

[Autumn]

Isn't 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' generally set up as a dichotomy - you're pretty much supposed to be one or the other? Maybe you could argue for some extreme middle ground in between, but to say it's moronic to have any position but the middle ground is, um, kind of moronic in itself.

According to my civics teacher, the majority of American citizens are closer to the middle ground.