Posted on 02/25/2010 9:26:39 AM PST by blasater1960
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."
"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
What a load.....
We always knew that they thought they were oh so much smarter than everyone else
Now this is just proof
Why aren’t they smart enough to figure out why people don’t like them much?
Given the centrality of having more offspring to natural selection theory, the fact that ‘intelligent’ liberals have horrible childbirth rates blows holes in this kind of evolutionary thinking.
Well, I’ll take this one with a grain of salt, thanks.
But here’s another, rather more sensible article by the same author, on “Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil”:
So, this guy isn’t totally dumb. Evidently, he’s been reading too much Darwin, and just needs a conversion experience.
..I’d invite the author to drop by the Liberal Arts dept of any university and check out the ‘more intelligent’ faculty...see how they’re doing in their private lives...see how they dress...see their personal appearance...see what kind of cars they drive...see how they’re still paying off student loans at 45...see what kind of housing they’re stuck in...see how they drink....then tell me how ‘intelligent’ they are.
If you have to tell people you are intelligent, chances are, you aren't.
Did this include only the “university intelligentsia” elitists or was it a more “diverse” group of libs, including the radical leftist voters in the central cities?
This smacks of the Frankfurt school...
“Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.”
We always knew that they thought they were oh so much smarter than everyone else
So do schizophrenics that’s not saying they’re right.
Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.
It's interesting they have to go to the fringes ("very this" and "very that") to find an effect. Anyway, smart young people tend to want to reshape the whole world to show how smart they are, so they are often drawn to liberalism and rejection of religious tradition. I suggest they do the studies again after these youngsters grow up and pay taxes for a few years.
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves."
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Albert Einstein
Exactly...plus liberal-atheist aversion to self-reliance and tendency towards imposition of central authority, which has lead to mass starvation and/or murder. This is evolutionary superiority?
This is a liberal axiom, and it is a reason why these fools crave power. It is their hubris and they are blind to the fact that they are actually fools.
Atheism is ever bit “faith-based” as traditional religion. How can they know for certain that God doesn’t exist.
The article would be more accurate if it had said that they were more arrogant.
Science today wants (needs) to reject all of the old thinking, and any notion that there might be a power higher than Man. And they publish crap like this to bolster their position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.