Posted on 02/28/2010 7:30:42 AM PST by kingattax
"Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds."
So began an article published at CNN.com Friday guaranteed to anger conservatives from coast to coast.
The piece continued, "Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs."
Folks are warned about proceeding further, for the content might be really offensive to some (h/tips to NB readers Stan and Chesley):
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
And on average liberals and atheists are generally more unhappy than conservatives and religious folks, even though their own personal levels of self-satisfaction and smugness over others is generally very high. They also really like to seem to cheat and do ‘end justifies the means’ schemes more than other categories of people. They are incredible at rationalization.
Big whup if they score better on an IQ test. I’ve known several libs who were ‘geniuses’ in their given field but couldn’t function in other areas of life just interacting with people.
Even IF this were true, the take home conclusion would be that “IQ”, whatever that actually measures, is HIGHLY OVERRATED.
CNN polled their own newsroom for those results.
I would say that many liberals do have higher aptitudes for certain things....mostly in the area of arts and culture. What many of them don’t have is a lick of common sense. Take for example George Bernard Shaw who saw Soviet Russia as the future. He was not the only liberal intellectual who was seduced by the socialist dream. Undoubtedly he would have hated most of the people in his dream society as evidenced by his lunatic proposal to kill most people who he considered unfit to live. Following the advice of brilliant idiots like Shaw would have led the world down the road to slavery.
Oh please - this is absurd on so many levels. For one thing, an “IQ test” can be skewed in any which way; the categories here are inaccurately and way too broadly drawn; and the reasoning is horribly flawed. Does this really pass for scholarship?
Mao, Lenin, and Trotsky probably had very high I.Q.’s too. And just look at the magnificent societies they constructed. (smirk
"Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter. What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost. Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running (Hillary Clinton, ed.)".[10]
What shall it profit a man ....
I belong to some HIQ groups and they are, for the most part, agnostic libertarians. I of course am not.
Mensan and conservative here
I read, in another more detailed article, that the study looked at individuals between 18-28 years old. When I was in college I had liberal tendancies as well. It wasn’t ‘til I started a job, had a family, bought a house, paid bills, ect. that I became a conservative. It amazes me that this article intentionally left this information out. They never looked at people above the age of 28, that leaves out 2/3 of the population. Shame on them.
Watch those liberal peckerwoods show their sapience when it comes time to look the facts of Climategate in the eye.
Our family totalled our IQs and we fell 10 points short of 1 MENSA membership.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa “
If there ever was a pseudoscience, it’s EP.
Dumbie here.
Some of the dumbest people I’ve ever met had “high I.Q.s”.
Well, Obama was the first person to recognize 58 states. /sarc.
“The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people.”
DOES ANYBODY READ? Above is the money quote. The DEFINITION OF “LIBERAL” is an American Christian. Who do you think shows more concern for genetically unrelated people by donating private resources? The data are unambiguous. Moreover, atheists in every report I have seen give relatively little voluntarily. The “study” is bizarre, and even CNN ought to be able recognize that there is something wrong.
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.