This 2010 "study" is behind a paywall and I can't access it, but I am highly skeptical about the conclusions. It also says that men with higher IQ's are more likely to value sexual exclusivity, but the same is not true for women.

But then, maybe being skeptical is correlated with an increased IQ?

However being skeptical of things selectively, in direct proportion to how much they challenge one's own worldview, does not.

Slap a bandage on that ox cbayer.

It feels right, but I've not seen anything to support it.

Correlating with IQ is fraught with problems,a s I am sure you know. There are racial/economic/educational/cultural biases deeply imbedded in IQ tests. It is really difficult to truly adjust for these variables.

I have no idea what your bandage on an ox reference is about, but congrats to you for getting a personal jab in there. Is that why I need a bandage?

your personal ox is being gored...but it's a nasty comment, regardless of what was meant.

Just got back from my local Mensa chapter's Regional Gathering (SE Michigan, including Detroit and Ann Arbor)....The members on the whole are conservative, IMO. (But then, I am posting on DU. Perhaps if I joined more liberal groups...but I find it hard to locate those in Depression-weary Michigan.)

I joined a Unitarian Universalism congregation as an adult, and damn me if they didn't swing way over to conservative in the year 2005. I'm suspecting it's tied to economics, more than anything else. People who aren't making it, economically, whose progress doesn't match their expectations, protect themselves and their families. It's a rare case when poor people are giving...either they give because everyone is equally poor, or they are saints and would-be martyrs.

What does one do at a mensa meeting? I imagine people playing very cognitively challenging games and talking about how you've got to use it or lose it.

As you note, I suspect there is a much stronger correlation between economic status and political position/religious beliefs. The vulnerability that an unstable financial status produces makes people easy prey for those that use scare tactics, including conservatives and some religious groups.

We have food and drink--emphasis on chocolate, craft beers, unusual wines, locally produced mead, and a brewery class.

Couple of lectures on Big Bang and the Milky Way.

An ACLU lawyer came in to talk about working with returning full citizenship to former prisoners who have paid their debt, and why they can't, ever. Talk of reforming criminal law system in all aspects. I missed the lecture on recent Neanderthal research findings.

Games: poker, euchre, scrabble, cribbage, and the strategy games that are all the rage. No chess interest in this group. Also Mensa Bowl, comparable to the old College Bowl program in the 60's on TV. Carnelli, which may be totally Mensan...I don't know. Other odd and quirky things.

A large program for children and about 30 children attending: they did chemistry, crafts, taking apart donated broken electrical equipment to see what was inside...swimming parties, etc.

On site testing for would-be members...

and a chance to see friends. I've been relatively inactive due to life constraints, so this was my annual refreshment.

It's hard to cram it all into a weekend.

I like the political awareness aspect, and the food/drinks, lol.

I think it's great that you have found a group of people with similar interests and glad that you were able to attend.

Hoping that there are more meetings in your future~

Then you may be eligible to join in! Stanford-Binet of 132 makes the cutoff.

Every local group is different...and there's always room for improvement, like any volunteer organization, but Mensa has been getting better as time goes by. I've been a member since...1976? Long enough to notice the trends, anyway.

Plus, I'm not much of a joiner.

It's interesting, though, that it exists and provides community for some who might not have other options readily available. I think this is particularly true for those that are non-religious or religiously unaffiliated.

I can't remember it's official name, but it was for those who were too far away to affiliate with a local group. And besides, a Mensan can go to any Mensa event, around the world! So can any non-member!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa_International

http://www.mensa.org/

Much as I love not having a specific home base, it would be nice to have something that offered some consistency from time to time.

Now, about that test……

"It's a rare case when poor people are giving."

In fact the opposite is true.

My experience has shown me the opposite, as do the statistics.

Wealthy Have Gotten Less Generous As Poor Give More To Charity

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/wealthy-charity-giving-greedy_n_5937100.html

Why the Rich Don't Give to Charity

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/

You're talking to an atheist (or agnostic or something) that has been banned from the Atheists and Agnostics group. Her favorite ploy is to sound like a believer and then spring it on you. SURPRISE! Like finding out the villain in a Dan Brown novel was the 'good guy' on page 3.

to me negation seems the most likely to yield something definitive.

The whittling down of uncertainties ... the moving away from things we know aren't true always seems to leave us waiting for further whittling.

re the op, We are set up to acquire learning and we are gregarious

Seems to me like many gregarious animals we are sensitive to how others react to the environment and group members. This allows us to benefit from their perception (surveillance and interpretation) of threats, opportunities etc.

If we are telling just-so stories about how humans evolved, I would think our species has had a very long association with 'others' in our groups who go beyond our immediate families, and which likely mirrors expecations of game theory about reciprocity and how mutualism (not necessarily altruism) evolves.

Many gregarious mammals show sensitivity to and reliance on others that evidence mutual reciprocity that works well beyond immediate family members.

I do think that when makes definitive claims, like there is a positive correlation between IQ and liberalism/atheism, one really does need to back that up with statistics.

The theories about evolution and gregariousness are interesting but you can't draw hard conclusions about IQ from them.

that probability always leaves uncertainty. Consequently "proof" is really not an outcome of such statistics.

What's suggested seems to be relationships between IQ indicators and categories of political or religious types. I suspect the inclusion of categorical levels of measurement requires the analysis to be non-parametric, like some form of product moment computation.

In applied statistics, the object is to develop a decision aid to choose between competing hypotheses. That's usually some sort of 'test score'. Typically one or more hypotheses are rejected/negated as being unsupported with some degree of certainty surrounding assumed theoretical distributions about the test score.

The negated hypothesis is the thing we best know from the statistical test. What remains between competing hypothesis is -accepted- as not negated. Not being negated isn't the same as being proven (see above comment about uncertainty). Typically the evidence and the surviving hypothesis includes some difficulties which require further work which allows progress in understanding, i.e. a process like carving statues from stone is made by knocking off what isn't the image/truth inside the block of stone... We approach the truth, but do so asymptotically.

Evolutionary theory relies upon things like game theory to generate hypotheses and understanding which guide interpretive narratives of empirical data. Using another art analogy...empirical reports of evidence/scientific studies dealing with empirical data are like brush strokes on an oil painting. It takes many brush strokes to tell a story, but the meaning of the brush strokes is in the overall painting. Theory and theoretical methods (like game theory) provide the 'lenses' that allow theorists to 'see the image' thereby making the evidence interpretable. (Hopefully the lens is true, but sometimes it isn't.)

My expectation, based on my theoretical understanding and an appreciation for the evolution of relationships in non-humans is that human evolutionary relationships between intelligence and features of human social relationships can be framed as hypotheses generated by game theory. That enables explanations of existing data and will suggest future questions to be answered.

is what gives you the best indicator of how much room there is.

Sometimes it could be very little room. Other times, like in this case I suspect, the room is pretty vast.

Wanting something to be true is a very slippery slope when it comes to research, of course. That and all the uncontrollable variables makes this guys findings very suspect.

Most of what you have written here I do not understand and you obviously have a higher degree of understanding of this area than I do.

But the bottom line for me is this - until I am shown some evidence of there being a correlation which is statistically significant and replicable, I'm going to reject it as no more than an unproven hypothesis.

which weave plausibilities into an explanation of the value of an adaptation.

Stephan J Gould, called this process of story telling "the adaptationists' programme", and he was very critical of it's overuse.

Certainty explanations of correlations between intelligence and human religious or political preferences is going to be plagued by uncertainties introduced by the poor level of measurement.

IQ is notoriously difficult to measure and the measurements of it are typically not ratio scale and may not rise to interval scale Division of populations into categories or placement of individuals upon artificial scales of politicalness or religiousness are likewise going to involve measures which are rather arbitrary decisions of the measurer and likely include 'stretchiness' that introduces ambiguity.

No matter how a person might successfully replicate such studies, the quality of the level of measurement used is unlikely yield much that is strongly convincing.

But again, statistical tests -don't- prove hypotheses. Statistical tests allow rejection of hypotheses. Whatever hypotheses left are simply "not rejected". That is suggestive of some truth but that truthiness could be confounded through various problems

I have read a little, but not much, about Gould. In general, I find these soft sciences difficult to get my arms around.

I am much more comfortable with hard sciences.

to see if they are plausible. Let the chips fall where they may.

Remarkably, I have seen people on DU say that evo psych should never be investigated because it might discover "unacceptable things."

And natural scientists, who tend to be very bright, are overwhelmingly atheists.

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism

Our chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear here:
Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists

Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15.0 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68.0 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17.0 20.8
--
Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18.0 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53.0 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29.0 23.3
Figures are percentages.

Last edited Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:54 AM - Edit history (1)

-THE- scientific method is something of a misnomer, there are multiple methodological approaches to scientific investigation which fall into 2 or 3 classes (theoretical vs empirical, or theoretical, vs experimental, vs surveillance) depending on what's being considered. And these different approaches are applied in somewhat different forms, with different utility and varying emphasis in the different branches and disciplines of science.

So we find things like 'thought experiments' and advanced theoretical mathematics more common in advanced areas of cosmology than they are say in explorations of chemical properties in inorganic chemistry.

Theory and mathematical techniques and 'natural experiments' tend to be more important in ecology than in anatomy

Evolutionary psychology has attempted to answer intriguing questions about things such as the emergence of specialized areas of brain function (modules) that enable functions that possibly have adaptive significance. The interests and difficulties of getting at those questions deal with comparative neuroanatomy & neurophysiology, comparative genetics. comparative behavior and are guided (some people say with too much certainty) by interpretations within the context of apparent adaptive value. In some sense evolutionary psychology has discovered very intriguing questions that outstripped its capacity apply direct methods of experimentation on features of the brain and (as I understand it, and I'm not an expert) frequently rely on easier to obtain indicative evidence of associations just as in the op.

Who does not have a very clear conception of what "proof" is..in any context.

It ain't rocket science.

The people there were enraged…. at every single person from the US. It was impossible to convince them that ½ of us didn't vote for him

Data was completely irrelevant.

BTW, I started telling everyone I was from Canada.

I told people who asked that I was Canadian, too.

Here are the abstract & a link to a pdf of the article.

Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
SATOSHI KANAZAWA
Social Psychology Quarterly
Vol. 73, No. 1, 33–57

The paper itself is really hard to read, but it looks to me like he primarily used some kind of survey data and the belief in god analysis is not significantly significant.

Anyway, there are studies that come up with the opposite conclusion and I can't see that this has been replicated, so I'm not going to put much stake in it.

Like I said, I think he can use this to refute some negative assumptions bout non-believers, but pushing this to make assumptions about intelligence and political persuasion or atheism is really a stretch.

I do appreciate you finding it for me though.

You have all the proof you need, just turn on Foxnews on one TV and the Rachel Maddow show on another and watch them side by side!

check! Liberal, check! Atheist, check! I win the trifecta!!!!!

That's German for "and me too."

where'd you get the fist bump hifiguy?

Maybe they'll make the link between Socipaths and Conservatives next. Another 'duh' concept. There should be a whole other type of measurement for that. If we have EQ (Emotional Quotient) and IQ (Intelligence Quotient), maybe they can come up with some name for that cunning type of thinking. Maybe CQ (Cunning Quotient)

The only exceptions have tended to be engineers. Smart and talented in a narrow field, but very conservative and many are religious (which makes no engineering sense to me).

Engineers apply science, they don't do science, even if they think they do (I've found them the worst regarding climate science, 'cause they know science...).

I am an engineer. What I do see from those engineers that tend towards right wing thinking is that they are motivated by self sustainment and they feel they need to tow the corporate line or the company will find someone else to do the job for them. Or they fall into the egocentric group that views themselves as "better" than the worker-bees. But egocentricity is not exclusive to engineers, it appears to run the gamut of many office/management staff members.

to some extent. As the median ideology has gotten more conservative over the years, the discussions have become more inane, at least in GD. The lounge has always been a place for silliness, as it should be. I post my vanity threads in there when the spirit moves me.

THAT was why. He knows it, too. People who are more educated and smarter tend to have more open minds, tend not to scare so easily, tend not to fall for shit because they're smart enough to know better. That leaves you with voters who are harder to snooker.

This thread delivered

... then conservatism is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Liberalism includes caring about others, but it also has a large element of enlightened self-interest. Living in a society with economic and social justice has widespread benefits for everyone (except perhaps psychopaths who aren't happy unless they're on top of everyone else).

The poster has no problem pointing to the urban dictionary when she deems it appropriate.

Bookmarked if only for this.

African American women are not less attractive- IMO, they may be more attractive. Of course, that is bias on my part- I prefer darker skin

I've seen some extremely un-empathetic replies and statements right here at DU, made to fellow DUers.

Much more honest to say that some Liberals have more empathy than to bestow that virtue on an entire group.

have a very high bar for accommodating facts which contradict their world view, while having a very low bar for accommodating facts which support their world view. IMO it indicates that the world view comes first, then they cherry pick facts which reinforce it. In other words, they believe what they want to believe.

It's fun.

Look no further than Alabama.

No, DO look further than Alabama!


Look at Alaska, or Arizona.... or even Pennsylvania! Or ND, SD, WI, OK, KS, Il.....


That way one can avoid South Bashing.


The problem is systemic....

Because he manages to be a legit scientists as opposed to a quack.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa

Blinded studies are even rarer. I don't think I have ever seen a double blinded psychology study. This "study" is more like anecdotal evidence, but whatever

Reinhart-Rogoff was touted as proof as well. Until you see the spreadsheets, I wouldn't go around citing this one. I'd also note the may in the first sentence of the article. Last I checked, may isn't a word associated with the word proof.

Romans 1:22

Your ju ju doesn't work on us!

is not one bit different, in terms of logic, than citing Action Comics as proof of the existence of Superman.

The Harry Potter story is also true. I know this because I read all seven books about Harry Potter.

Just look around. You can accept it or reject it but truth doesn't change because you deny it (like global warming) Though the point of the post was not proof of God. Rather to understand that to be truly wise is to realize how much you do not know.

You owe me a new irony meter!

You got me.

Praise the Lord.



In all seriousness, of COURSE I don't know a lot of things, like quantum physics and the like -- but that doesn't mean these things have a supernatural explanation.

Everything God does can be studied scientifically.

Corinthians 1:5

online lead me to think that Asperger's people are often far brighter than average. The number of atheists (including me) and atheist-leaning agnostics is wildly disproportionate in the Aspie community.

You don't believe the logical fallacies that pass as argument and proven fact.

Some people don't have the capacity to think beyond the last voice they heard.

I have five brothers. We all had good educations. We were all liberal once. Now two of them are rabid right wingers. Dennis Miller and Ray Bradbury were liberal once. Wha happened?

a purely financial/career decsion, though that's just a guess.

Don't have a clue about Bradbury. Didn't know about that at all.

Who cares about Miller now? He was a star once.

when he "converted," I think. Frankly, I never found him funny to begin with.

And not only are we Virgos remarkably intelligent, but we don't believe in superstitious nonsense like gods and palm reading and astrology.

Yup. Life's good when you're a Virgo.

Bur you know how skeptical Sagitarians are

I rely on crystals, tea leaves and goat innards.

As an Atheist who is more or less moderate Democrat, I sure don't feel super intelligent.

Maybe I'm not Liberal enough...

Thanks.