Comments on: Smart Beliefs

By: EcoMeme: Vegetarians Smarter Than Omnivores? | EcoSalon | Conscious Culture and Fashion

Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:34:27 +0000

[...] as adults.” – A blog post and discussion that asks if the new study is unfair, via Overcoming Bias, by Robin [...]

By: w. billingsworth

w. billingsworth — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:52:59 +0000

Extremely intelligent folks can convey their thoughts in simple language. Puffy words and lengthy, tortuous sentences are the earmarks of not-so-bright folks wishing to appear bright.

Your writings, Robin, seem to be the latter. My, your mother must be so proud of you.

By: J

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:57:59 +0000

Thanks LL!

I note that the definition of liberalism continues beyond Robin’s quote:

“In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually
translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs”

That sounds like a willingness to confiscate larger proportions of other peoples’ resources for the welfare of such others, which is a good way to curry favor or buy influence, and hardly qualifies as “evolutionarily novel”.

A more general question – is there any evidence that people with higher IQs are more likely to be liberal as we use the term in US politics? I know GSS data shows the more education you have the more likely you are to lean republican, albeit with a slight dropoff at the postgraduate level, though that requires using education as a proxy for intelligence.

By: flenser

flenser — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:08:49 +0000

Describing liberalism as “relatively new on a evolutionary timescale” is a tautology, since it describes every aspect of humanity. I don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation of what he was trying to say, or a proper use of the word “novel”. On the other hand, he does not come across as being very intelligent …

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:26:11 +0000

I added to the post.

By: Microbiologist

Microbiologist — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:19:54 +0000

You are using the wrong def of ‘novel.’ Kanazawa or whoever simply means things that are relatively new — speaking on an evolutionary timescale. Whether christianity or liberalism did it first, the thing is relatively new nevertheless. Similarly, on some timescales mammals are a novel development.

By: flenser

flenser — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:23:51 +0000

A thing can only be “novel” (new, not formerly known) once. If Christianity introduced the concept of “genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others” two thousand years ago, then liberalism is not novel in calling for the same thing today. This remains true regardless of the length of the time interval in question. If Christianity had preceded liberalism by just one month, liberalism would still not be novel.

By: stephen

stephen — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:07:52 +0000

As many have argued most of these beliefs do not seem to have any adaptive value. My model still seems to favor signaling of some form. I would say that people use their beliefs to signal loyalty to other members of their group, whatever the salient groups happen to be. The question then becomes why do intelligent people tend to form allegiances with other intelligent people? Is there something adaptive about that?

By: Buck Farmer

Buck Farmer — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:12:23 +0000

Christianity has only been around roughly two thousand years. That’s definitely evolutionarily novel.

By: LemmusLemmus

LemmusLemmus — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:23:06 +0000

No need to pay.