Introduction The Hunter-Gatherer Fitness model proposes that an individual's political ideology is largely determined by their relative level of fitness in a hunter-gatherer environment. One’s ability to survive and thrive in a hunter-gatherer society is a leading factor behind their political preferences. This link is an adaptation to group survival in a resource scarce world, and is an unconscious motivator in voting decisions and political activism.
No I haven't, thanks for that. It is interesting and useful, particularly this bit:
"Examining the structure of spatial ability across all 16 tests, three, substantially correlated, factors emerged: Navigation, Object Manipulation, and Visualization. These, in turn, loaded strongly onto a general factor of Spatial Ability, which was highly heritable (84%)."
This is very similar to my findings with the CASA test, since one of the subtests (Orientation) is more of a navigating exercise than the others, and also correlates substantially with the others and with the overall Spatial Ability.
This line is also interesting, I am not quite sure what to make of it yet.
"A large portion (45%) of this high heritability was independent of g."
"If there is a difference [in IQ], liberals may have the advantage (Carl, 2014)."
The link is broken. Further search shows your source says the opposite.
"...individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points)."
I would theorize that the writer of the journal entry claiming liberals are smarter than conservatives based upon a source that says the opposite is an example of liberals engaging in deception in order to get influence.
Also from Carl:
"This study examines three other measures of cognitive ability from the GSS: a test of probability knowledge, a test of verbal reasoning, and an assessment by the interviewer of how well the respondent understood the survey questions. In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively."
Secondly, the Kierkegaard source that immediately preceded the relevant sentence supports the claim (that liberals may be smarter).
Thirdly, the important part of Carl's paper was the first line of the abstract: "Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs". I don't care about the rest, it likely has some flaw like sampling bias or bad methodology.
Fourthly, I have seen from some of my own limited research that liberals are smarter than conservatives. I have posted about one of my surveys, and will post about the other sometime.
Fifthly, it makes perfect sense that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives. Conservatives are physically superior, liberals are intellectually superior. That is the only reason liberals are able to gain any power. There is just no way conservatives are smarter. They have a stereotype for being less intelligent, and stereotypes are often true, read Lee Jussim. Also, they are more rural, and rural folk are known to be less intelligent than city folk.
Lastly, did you suggest that I am a liberal trying to make you think that I am a conservative who just thinks that liberals are smarter? I don't even know what to say to that. I'm not sure it is possible to be any more conservative than I am.
My first link is I believe what you were linking when your link worked:
"Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs. This should lead one to expect that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. However, I find that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points)."
The first sentence is countered by what is next said. This is what I was referring to when I said it was an example of liberals trying to get influence; it wasn't a reference to you but to the journal entry writer, the writer of the abstract I just quoted. I have long noted a tendency of liberal "science" writing to take the form of "to summarize, Liberals rock based upon following data!" then the data says the opposite of what the liberal claims. Everyone quotes the intro/ summary that says liberals are correct, while ignoring all the data within that contradicts it. Every Jared Diamond book is a great example of this.
Virtually every study I've seen on liberals being smarter had very flawed methodology. Like letting the liberal authors of the study pick the definition of liberal/ conservative, or comparing extremes, or only looking at college students who tend to be smarter but also less conservative than they would be even 5 years after graduation. If you break it down even further than lib/con, the highest IQ is held by libertarian conservatives.
You: "Fifthly, it makes perfect sense that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives. Conservatives are physically superior, liberals are intellectually superior."
That is assuming the question.
You: "That is the only reason liberals are able to gain any power."
They gain power by team work and likely a suite of pathologies including narcissism. Conservatives lose power by emphasizing individualism (which isn't really a tenet of conservatism, but has been propagandized to be so by lefties) and by projecting our values onto liberals, e.g., assuming they play fair and want what is best for society. Teams of narcissists all feeding each others' ego and justifying their actions to any extent needed are going to gain political power over higher IQ people that just want to be left alone to live their lives.
Also, the nature of conservatism is to keep power of government low, while liberals want a big government. Guess which view is going to be favored by those in government? Which is why many conservatives get into government and immediately start promoting big government. It's in their personal best interest and many people strongly tend to adopt the interests of whatever organization they join.
So do you think liberals are smarter, dumber, or the same? I am totally convinced that, on average, liberals are smarter, because:
1. Conservatives are more rural, and rural people have lower IQ.
2. Again, it is the only way liberals would be able to gain power. You think it is team work, but team work requires intelligence. Smarter people can work together better. Humans are the most social and the most intelligent species.
3. Research has consistently shown that liberals are smarter (according to Carl), and my own research supports this.
4. IQ has a correlation with myopia (Jensen), and liberalism also has a correlation with myopia (from my own research + liberals have low HGF + women more prone to myopia and women are more liberal).
1. This seems to depend on many things. Studies show a huge difference back in the 70s, but then a huge leap in rural IQ took place. Also, suburbs are generally included as 'urban' and suburbs are often more conservative. Some of the studies you cite only use data from Whites, ignoring the teaming masses of urban poor with average IQs of 80.
Some sources state that smart people are born in rural areas, then move to the city, then eventually move back to rural or suburban locations.
2. I already explained to you how team work explains beating individuals. Tendency to work as a team is not purely correlated by IQ; there are many high IQ people that are terrible at team work, and low IQ people who are great at it. Liberal pathologies also give them an unfair advantage, such as the inability to see unfairness if it gives them an advantage.
3. I explained to you how Carl's own data explicitly states conservatives are smarter, including verbally.
Your article: "Males are more rational than females, while also being more conservative. Intelligence also correlates strongly with rationality (Stanovich et al., 2016)."
I see no evidence that smaller, weaker people are smarter. Your sources only seem to say that larger brains use more calories. Larger brains and larger, stronger bodies both create opportunities for calorie acquisition so there cannot be a straight correlation between size and IQ.
Windsor: "Its just too parsimonious."
That should be a clue that it isn't the full story. Human behavior is rarely simple.
"Tendency to work as a team is not purely correlated by IQ"
Alright, well I gave you the benefit of the doubt but youre obviously retarded. Like seriously? Do I seriously need to explain to you that basically nothing in social science worth studying is purely correlated? Of course it doesnt have a correlation of 1. Do you even know what a correlation is? What is your IQ?
"...it is the only way liberals would be able to gain power. You think it is team work, but team work requires intelligence. Smarter people can work together better. Humans are the most social and the most intelligent species."
...only makes sense if there is a correlation of 1 between IQ and team work.
If you think it's retarded to think there is a correlation of 1 between IQ and team work you shouldn't have used an argument that requires there to be a correlation of 1 between IQ and teamwork. An argument which explicitly states a correlation of 1:
"...team work requires intelligence."
REQUIRES
Yet somehow stupid people can still be great team members and geniuses can be terrible team members.
Humans aren't more social than ants or other hive creatures, who are generally pretty stupid.
Have you read this? I think this might be of interest to you https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-020-0067-8#ethics
No I haven't, thanks for that. It is interesting and useful, particularly this bit:
"Examining the structure of spatial ability across all 16 tests, three, substantially correlated, factors emerged: Navigation, Object Manipulation, and Visualization. These, in turn, loaded strongly onto a general factor of Spatial Ability, which was highly heritable (84%)."
This is very similar to my findings with the CASA test, since one of the subtests (Orientation) is more of a navigating exercise than the others, and also correlates substantially with the others and with the overall Spatial Ability.
This line is also interesting, I am not quite sure what to make of it yet.
"A large portion (45%) of this high heritability was independent of g."
"If there is a difference [in IQ], liberals may have the advantage (Carl, 2014)."
The link is broken. Further search shows your source says the opposite.
"...individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points)."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614000373
I would theorize that the writer of the journal entry claiming liberals are smarter than conservatives based upon a source that says the opposite is an example of liberals engaging in deception in order to get influence.
Also from Carl:
"This study examines three other measures of cognitive ability from the GSS: a test of probability knowledge, a test of verbal reasoning, and an assessment by the interviewer of how well the respondent understood the survey questions. In all three cases, individuals who identify as Republican score slightly higher than those who identify as Democrat; the unadjusted differences are 1–3 IQ points, 2–4 IQ points and 2–3 IQ points, respectively."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614001081
Thanks for the comment. Firstly, what link?
Secondly, the Kierkegaard source that immediately preceded the relevant sentence supports the claim (that liberals may be smarter).
Thirdly, the important part of Carl's paper was the first line of the abstract: "Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs". I don't care about the rest, it likely has some flaw like sampling bias or bad methodology.
Fourthly, I have seen from some of my own limited research that liberals are smarter than conservatives. I have posted about one of my surveys, and will post about the other sometime.
Fifthly, it makes perfect sense that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives. Conservatives are physically superior, liberals are intellectually superior. That is the only reason liberals are able to gain any power. There is just no way conservatives are smarter. They have a stereotype for being less intelligent, and stereotypes are often true, read Lee Jussim. Also, they are more rural, and rural folk are known to be less intelligent than city folk.
Lastly, did you suggest that I am a liberal trying to make you think that I am a conservative who just thinks that liberals are smarter? I don't even know what to say to that. I'm not sure it is possible to be any more conservative than I am.
I don't necessarily disagree with your article, I think it has some great points. However I think there is a lot more going on.
===
Broken link, from your bibliography:
Carl, Noah. (2014). Verbal intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal beliefs. Intelligence. 44. 142-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.03.005.
My first link is I believe what you were linking when your link worked:
"Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs. This should lead one to expect that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. However, I find that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points)."
The first sentence is countered by what is next said. This is what I was referring to when I said it was an example of liberals trying to get influence; it wasn't a reference to you but to the journal entry writer, the writer of the abstract I just quoted. I have long noted a tendency of liberal "science" writing to take the form of "to summarize, Liberals rock based upon following data!" then the data says the opposite of what the liberal claims. Everyone quotes the intro/ summary that says liberals are correct, while ignoring all the data within that contradicts it. Every Jared Diamond book is a great example of this.
Virtually every study I've seen on liberals being smarter had very flawed methodology. Like letting the liberal authors of the study pick the definition of liberal/ conservative, or comparing extremes, or only looking at college students who tend to be smarter but also less conservative than they would be even 5 years after graduation. If you break it down even further than lib/con, the highest IQ is held by libertarian conservatives.
You: "Fifthly, it makes perfect sense that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives. Conservatives are physically superior, liberals are intellectually superior."
That is assuming the question.
You: "That is the only reason liberals are able to gain any power."
They gain power by team work and likely a suite of pathologies including narcissism. Conservatives lose power by emphasizing individualism (which isn't really a tenet of conservatism, but has been propagandized to be so by lefties) and by projecting our values onto liberals, e.g., assuming they play fair and want what is best for society. Teams of narcissists all feeding each others' ego and justifying their actions to any extent needed are going to gain political power over higher IQ people that just want to be left alone to live their lives.
Also, the nature of conservatism is to keep power of government low, while liberals want a big government. Guess which view is going to be favored by those in government? Which is why many conservatives get into government and immediately start promoting big government. It's in their personal best interest and many people strongly tend to adopt the interests of whatever organization they join.
Strange, the link seems to be working now.
Weird, for me, there is no link at all. Your computer must have just assumed its a link or something.
So do you think liberals are smarter, dumber, or the same? I am totally convinced that, on average, liberals are smarter, because:
1. Conservatives are more rural, and rural people have lower IQ.
2. Again, it is the only way liberals would be able to gain power. You think it is team work, but team work requires intelligence. Smarter people can work together better. Humans are the most social and the most intelligent species.
3. Research has consistently shown that liberals are smarter (according to Carl), and my own research supports this.
4. IQ has a correlation with myopia (Jensen), and liberalism also has a correlation with myopia (from my own research + liberals have low HGF + women more prone to myopia and women are more liberal).
Its just too parsimonious.
1. This seems to depend on many things. Studies show a huge difference back in the 70s, but then a huge leap in rural IQ took place. Also, suburbs are generally included as 'urban' and suburbs are often more conservative. Some of the studies you cite only use data from Whites, ignoring the teaming masses of urban poor with average IQs of 80.
Some sources state that smart people are born in rural areas, then move to the city, then eventually move back to rural or suburban locations.
qz.com/230249/those-with-the-highest-iqs-grow-up-in-the-country-and-move-to-the-city
2. I already explained to you how team work explains beating individuals. Tendency to work as a team is not purely correlated by IQ; there are many high IQ people that are terrible at team work, and low IQ people who are great at it. Liberal pathologies also give them an unfair advantage, such as the inability to see unfairness if it gives them an advantage.
3. I explained to you how Carl's own data explicitly states conservatives are smarter, including verbally.
Your article: "Males are more rational than females, while also being more conservative. Intelligence also correlates strongly with rationality (Stanovich et al., 2016)."
I see no evidence that smaller, weaker people are smarter. Your sources only seem to say that larger brains use more calories. Larger brains and larger, stronger bodies both create opportunities for calorie acquisition so there cannot be a straight correlation between size and IQ.
Windsor: "Its just too parsimonious."
That should be a clue that it isn't the full story. Human behavior is rarely simple.
"Tendency to work as a team is not purely correlated by IQ"
Alright, well I gave you the benefit of the doubt but youre obviously retarded. Like seriously? Do I seriously need to explain to you that basically nothing in social science worth studying is purely correlated? Of course it doesnt have a correlation of 1. Do you even know what a correlation is? What is your IQ?
Your statement...
"...it is the only way liberals would be able to gain power. You think it is team work, but team work requires intelligence. Smarter people can work together better. Humans are the most social and the most intelligent species."
...only makes sense if there is a correlation of 1 between IQ and team work.
If you think it's retarded to think there is a correlation of 1 between IQ and team work you shouldn't have used an argument that requires there to be a correlation of 1 between IQ and teamwork. An argument which explicitly states a correlation of 1:
"...team work requires intelligence."
REQUIRES
Yet somehow stupid people can still be great team members and geniuses can be terrible team members.
Humans aren't more social than ants or other hive creatures, who are generally pretty stupid.