Why Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent

submitted by cybitch from asanet.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

lol

Liberalism

It is difficult to provide a precise definition of a whole school of political ideology like liberalism. In this paper, however, I adopt the contemporary American definition of liberalism. I provisionally define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) as 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.

Also only uses adolescent IQ scores.

Funny comments from reddit thread on the article

https://old.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1k51eq/why_liberals_and_atheists_are_more_intelligent/

Liberals, on the other hand, are more intelligent because it takes a person with higher intelligence to flippantly consider political positions that do not benefit the person himself, which is why they're against gun laws, but pro affirmative action. These violate the self-preservation nature of survival, so it takes more intelligence to break past what's in our nature. Conservatives Bible believers are simply doing what they were programmed to do by nature, he argues...

LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Kanazawa

In response to ongoing controversies over his stated views, such as Sub-Saharan Black African countries suffer from chronic poverty and disease because their people have lower IQs, and black women are objectively less attractive than women of other races, he was dismissed from writing for Psychology Today, and his employer, the London School of Economics, prohibited him from publishing in non-peer-reviewed outlets for 12 months.[8] A group of 68 evolutionary psychologists issued an open letter titled "Kanazawa's bad science does not represent evolutionary psychology" rejecting his views,[9] and an article on the same theme was published by 35 academics in American Psychologist.[10]

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Do you not agree with this definition?

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I don't think it's the most precise term to use for what he's describing.

Socialism would be more closer to that definition than liberalism as he's essentially stating redistribution is a core component of his definition.

Nowadays people throw terms around a lot, so I can accept that the modern definition he is using is likely used by many people that would call themselves liberals but are not, at least with respect to the historical definition of that term.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

What do you think about the article's claim, though - that there's a correlation between intelligence and embracing novel ideas? Personally, I don't think the modern day American left embraces much of anything that goes against their ideology, but they do seem to be all for embracing the outgroup - foreigners and people of different races. On the other hand, you could argue that political ideology is what defines the new outgroup, and leftists are definitely not embracing them.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

What do you think about the article's claim, though - that there's a correlation between intelligence and embracing novel ideas?

I don't really care about quantifying that or any associations. Embracing novel ideas that have terrible consequences doesn't seem very smart, does it? Tests in a school classroom don't mean you're capable of passing tests in life.

I think enough is said that these seemingly intelligent people are more-than-happy to throw away their cultural inheritance. Seems like they're very stupid in practice.

They're the most selfish people that have ever lived. They don't care about the future of their children, their own communities, their inheritance, or really anything for that matter. They simply care about living the most today, hence why they don't care about accumulating debt that their children and grandchildren will have to pay off so that they can feel good about themselves in front of their friends. They live their life with an exceptionally high time preference because they're essentially spoiled children.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Can you elaborate on what the consequences of specific liberal ideas are? I have my own views on this that don't quite match those on the American left either, but as a woman I could never agree with people who advocate for limiting my personal human rights back to what they used to be. I don't see this as being "selfish", but having a sense of self-preservation. Just because people who call themselves progressive aren't steering things into the direction I agree with doesn't mean we ought to go backwards. Maybe it's possible to come up with systems that are superior to those people had in the past. It's what tends to happen with technology, I don't see why political ideology couldn't work the same way.

[–]Nombre27 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Can you elaborate on what the consequences of specific liberal ideas are?

List some.

I wish you'd be more specific with what you're talking about. You're speaking in very general terms so it's hard to address what you've written.

Regarding your comment on technology and since this thread was initially about intelligence. A calculator can do far more complex calculations than most human minds. Do you think having this crutch has made us smarter or dumber? I think a valid argument could be made that relying on a crutch like a calculator instead of mentally computing things or even drawing them out by hand has made people more stupid, what do you think?

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

but as a woman I could never agree with people who advocate for limiting my personal human rights back to what they used to be. I don't see this as being "selfish", but having a sense of self-preservation.

It's neither selfish or a sense of self-preservation. It's entitlement, shortsightedness and naive.
White women are being used as puppets by our common enemy to take down the very system that white women enjoy the privileges of. Remember from an evolutionary psychology point of view, your behaviour is meant to increase the chance of your genes surviving. In the next generation most of your genes might be a man and most of your husbands genes might be a girl.
You should not strive for - evolutionarily speaking - some sort of utopian equality but for efficiency and intergenerational power accumulation. Assisting your enemy to get temporary "human rights" is a fatal flaw. Alt-rightism is not about principles but about survival and securing an existance for our children.
Non-whites likewise think its good for them to take down whites, because of propaganda. It isn't.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You should not strive for - evolutionarily speaking - some sort of utopian equality but for efficiency and intergenerational power accumulation.

Generally the power these days doesn't seem to be in the hands of white people anymore though...

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It seems the comment you replied to went over your head.

Men and women are two sides to that coin of generating intergenerational power.

They have to work together to do that.

Do you think at least some of the feminist agenda has contributed to preventing that generation?

Men need to do more on their own behalf too, but everyone is really only in charge of themselves.

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't see how "the feminist agenda" could possibly prevent this. The only thing men have ever, throughout history, contributed to child rearing is wealth. Now women can substitute and be independent which makes things better - children can now be kept away from the violent element that commits the vast majority of homicides and battery on not only strangers, but on their own families as well. Which would you rather have for the future generation - childhoods where their mothers and them are beaten but can't leave because of a lack of financial resources, or mothers with the freedom to stay or leave at their discretion.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you think we want to enslave women or something?

[–]cybitch[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sounds far-fetched, doesn't it. Have women had the vote since the beginning of time where you're from btw?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

where you're from btw?

Belgium.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What do you think about the article's claim, though - that there's a correlation between intelligence and embracing novel ideas?

Well that sort of complicates the thesis given the ideas of liberalism saturate every part of our media, our educational system and our political life. In other words liberalism isn't novel it's the 'sea we swim in' therefore current day liberals aren't that intelligent on that metric. Fascism is a novel idea that one has to seek out and no one is exposed to -- except to hiss at like a villain in a silent movie.

Embracing an outgroup in this day and age isn't a 'novel' idea either it's practically illegal not to do in many European cultures.

[–]cybitch[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, this occurred to me as well. The truly novel ideas these days aren't going to be ones you'll see people chanting on tv.