Adult intelligence predicts adult espousal of liberalism, atheism, and sexual exclusivity for men (but not for women), while intelligence is not associated with the adult espousal of evolutionarily familiar values on children, marriage, family, and friends. … Childhood intelligence at age 10 significantly increases the probability that individuals become vegetarian as adults.
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.
I note that the definition of liberalism continues beyond Robin's quote:
"In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usuallytranslates 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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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?
"Liberalism … [is] the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others."
I've got to disagree with defining this trait as 'Liberalism'. A much more accurate description of this trait would be 'Altruism' or 'Empathy'.
Defining this trait as 'Liberalism' betrays your political assumptions.
A 'Conservative' would object that when he DONATES HIS OWN MONEY to charity, he is more truly showing 'Altruism' than when a 'Liberal' votes in favor of more tax money being spent to accomplish the same end - since of course, what the Liberal is doing is voting to use the power of the state to force other people to pony up money in taxes to fulfill his charitable impulses - rather than digging into his own pocket and using his own money to accomplish the same end.
The Conservative would say, 'your GOAL is worthy, but the real test is if you are willing to contribute larger proportions of YOUR OWN private resources for the welfare of such others. It is a cheap sort of altruism being willing to contribute larger proportions of OTHER PEOPLE'S private resources for the welfare of such others.
In short, that IQ correlates with contrarianism, and therefore unpopular views will have higher-IQ proponents than popular views.
Perhaps it could be tested by checking contrarian views we take to be obviously wrong for correlation with higher IQ. Opposition to vaccine, 9/11 trutherism, and the theory that the moon landing was a hoax come to mind. Perhaps mutually contradictory but equally unpopular would be less controversial but serve equally well. Materialism and reincarnation, for example.
I doubt such studies have been done already, since only some views have adherents invested in the notion that they're inherently smarter than the opposition, and go looking for confirmation.
The definition provided is wrong, or at least drastically incomplete.
We should be careful not to reify liberalism and conservatism. Even if Plato's Republic is in some sense conservative, that has no bearing on what Sarah Palin or Glen Beck believe. If we find that forms of conservatism which gave intellectuals high status were popular with intellectuals -- Confucianism is probably the best example that was actually practiced by a society -- that in no way refutes the supposition that a form of liberalism which gives intellectuals high status might be popular with them for status-related reasons. Quite the opposite, I would think.
"Liberalism … [is] the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel."
Evolutionarily novel? Christianity beat liberalism to the punch by a couple of thousand years. (Whether that is a reasonable definition of liberalism also seems doubtful, but that's at least debatable).
The arrogant stupidity of this position is it's own built-in refutation.
(Hopefully, the extreme tactical stupidity of tying your pseudo-scientific field to a specific political/anti-religious position will eventually lead to disastrous results for "social psychology". Perhaps his superstitious inferiors will one day get control of Mr. Kanazawa's funding. Oops!)
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.
Thanks LL!
I note that the definition of liberalism continues beyond Robin's quote:
"In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usuallytranslates 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.
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 ...
I added to the post.
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.
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.
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?
Christianity has only been around roughly two thousand years. That's definitely evolutionarily novel.
No need to pay.
"Liberalism … [is] the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others."
I've got to disagree with defining this trait as 'Liberalism'. A much more accurate description of this trait would be 'Altruism' or 'Empathy'.
Defining this trait as 'Liberalism' betrays your political assumptions.
A 'Conservative' would object that when he DONATES HIS OWN MONEY to charity, he is more truly showing 'Altruism' than when a 'Liberal' votes in favor of more tax money being spent to accomplish the same end - since of course, what the Liberal is doing is voting to use the power of the state to force other people to pony up money in taxes to fulfill his charitable impulses - rather than digging into his own pocket and using his own money to accomplish the same end.
The Conservative would say, 'your GOAL is worthy, but the real test is if you are willing to contribute larger proportions of YOUR OWN private resources for the welfare of such others. It is a cheap sort of altruism being willing to contribute larger proportions of OTHER PEOPLE'S private resources for the welfare of such others.
Is libertarianism a matter of counter-signaling?
In short, that IQ correlates with contrarianism, and therefore unpopular views will have higher-IQ proponents than popular views.
Perhaps it could be tested by checking contrarian views we take to be obviously wrong for correlation with higher IQ. Opposition to vaccine, 9/11 trutherism, and the theory that the moon landing was a hoax come to mind. Perhaps mutually contradictory but equally unpopular would be less controversial but serve equally well. Materialism and reincarnation, for example.
I doubt such studies have been done already, since only some views have adherents invested in the notion that they're inherently smarter than the opposition, and go looking for confirmation.
The definition provided is wrong, or at least drastically incomplete.
We should be careful not to reify liberalism and conservatism. Even if Plato's Republic is in some sense conservative, that has no bearing on what Sarah Palin or Glen Beck believe. If we find that forms of conservatism which gave intellectuals high status were popular with intellectuals -- Confucianism is probably the best example that was actually practiced by a society -- that in no way refutes the supposition that a form of liberalism which gives intellectuals high status might be popular with them for status-related reasons. Quite the opposite, I would think.
"Liberalism … [is] the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel."
Evolutionarily novel? Christianity beat liberalism to the punch by a couple of thousand years. (Whether that is a reasonable definition of liberalism also seems doubtful, but that's at least debatable).
The arrogant stupidity of this position is it's own built-in refutation.
(Hopefully, the extreme tactical stupidity of tying your pseudo-scientific field to a specific political/anti-religious position will eventually lead to disastrous results for "social psychology". Perhaps his superstitious inferiors will one day get control of Mr. Kanazawa's funding. Oops!)
Oh well. Try again.
I mean that it would be an uncharitable interpretation of vegetarianism to say it was a mere cognitive error/byproduct.