Men with higher IQs are less conservative, study finds
A study conducted in Germany found that men with higher IQs are less inclined to traditional values, but the lead author, psychologist and intelligence researcher Maximilian Krolo of Saarland University, said the researchers did not find these differences among women.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/men-higher-iqs-less-conservative-172223373.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.ca911
Comments174
from a logical standpoint, conservatism is lacking any kind of sense or logic. I think it's safe to assume that, in order to follow blindly an idea that crumbles as soon as you critically think about it, you have to lack the ability to critically think.
What I think tho is that it's empathy what we should link to intelligence (or whatever you want to call the skill set that allows you to question and critizice everything).
Conservatism is a lack of empathy (which comes with a lack of said "intelligence").
I also believe this, and want to add that conservatism is mostly a combination of ideals based on grievances and a complete lack of critical thinking thinking as well.
I know plenty of intelligent conservatives, but all them lack empathy for anyone outside their circle.
I don't think they are intelligent if they are conservative. Conservatism is objectively bad for the collective. Supporting it means, ultimately, hurting the planet even to the point of making it uninhabitable. And if you think that you, with all the money in the world, can survive in a world like that, then you are not very intelligent.
They are selfish, and they might have some skills. But I don't think they can be called intelligent when they lack the critical thinking skills to question the most basic concepts of conservatism.
From where? No university I've worked at has a significant amount of conservative thought.
Actual conservatism is just as "logical" as libralism / leftism, or whatever you want to call the other side. Old fashioned conservatism is just the idea that traditional ways of doing things are good, so we should be slow in adopting changes.
Modern American conservatism isn't conservatism. It's an incoherent philosophy that resists some changes while making a lot of other very radical changes. There's no plan behind it. Even their "gameplan", project 2025, is a mess of contradictory ideas. The execution depends on the whims of an idiotic, incurious, and possibly altzheimer-addled man.
it would be easy to fake. its not hard know how to be a good person in theyre given socity, manipulator do it all the time. also are you going to define morality for all of humanity for this test? yah good luck with that lol.
There are very few actual republicans or conservatives now. What you are describing is not historical conservatism either socially or fiscally.
Duh
Aaah a feel-good article for leftists.
Plenty of dumb dumbs among us, don't worry.
There's a reason universities lean heavily left
I would disagree on the "heavily" unless you accept the US definition of the right-left paradigm.
Also ignore if you mean heavy in population ratio not how far the needle goes.
What university did you go to?
A canadien one.
Highly depends on what university you go to and whether or not you participate in the Greek culture.
yogurt?
We're talking about Universities here, not the hundreds of bullshit liberal arts colleges that are just sleep camps for the Learning Annex.
It really doesnt.
Can you elaborate on that?
Do you mean like "greek" college cults, like the alpha beta omega stuff? Or like Greek from the actual country, Greece?
Use your brain. Obviously it’s the Greek clubs. Everyone who replied to my comment doesn’t understand American Greek fraternities/sororities and the terrible culture surrounding them.
I saw that and was leading the conclusion for people. You're welcome.
Edit: but also, what IF greece somehow had a culture that led to this
Sure, but perhaps take solace that we're less deliberately hateful and that stupidity isn't celebrated as it is among the arch conservatives?
Present! I don't even remember my times tables
Eh. I don't feel particularly good that I'm surrounded by conservative idiots.
I think that political allegiance is often much more about emotions and sociological relations than intellect. Class thinking is more prevalent than we assume nowadays
Don't worry. Let a non dumb dumb explain.
There are many causality relationship kinds.
In case 1, all leftists have big IQ. But NOT all big IQ ppl are leftist.
In case 2, all big IQ ppl are leftist. But NOT all leftists have big IQ.
In case 3, all big IQ ppl are leftist, and all leftists have big IQ.
In case 4, some NOT all leftist have big IQ. And NOT all big IQ ppl are leftist. But some are.
Assuming having big IQ is desirable, leftists would want either case 1 or 3. Since that would mean they have a big IQ.
However, the headline seems to suggest case 2. And in reality. And it could still be case 4.
Of course, in reality there is an uncountable number of parameters, not just 3, so don't take the "all" in my comment as literally "all". Reality probably resembles more case 4.
If this were a feel-good article for leftists, the headline would suggest case 1 or 3. Since that is what leftists want.
Even assuming the best case scenario of case 2 where all big IQ people are leftists. If you define big IQ as "top 10%" and low IQ as "not big IQ": it is technically possible for 90% of leftists to be low IQ. And if low IQ is 50-50 leftist-conservative, 78% of leftists would be low IQ.
what about big PP tho?
Could be the third parameter that causes both leftism and big IQ.
Someone would need to do the study on that to be sure though.
To be liberal requires empathy. A deep understanding of others and their situations and the knowledge that your own personal needs dont always automatically outweigh others.
Empathy requires emotional intelligence.
Its easy to see it in action. Pick a problem and then look at the solutions offered by populist politicians to solve them.
In the UK one of the problems is immigrants arriving on small boats. The populist "solution"? "STOP THE BOATS" shouted far and wide.
How we ask?
And then silence. And when pressed, the likes of Reform offer more soundbites like "use the navy" and "send them back" but without any substance.
Meanwhile Liberal politicians offer actual solutions that are not sound bites, and they won't work quickly. Things like working with the French to find and arrest the people organising it. Helping to improve facilities in France and the rest of Europe so the UK isn't seen as somewhere an immigrant needs to travel to.
Basically, intelligent people aren't fooled by meaningless slogans. Morons aren't able to understand that deep problems require deep and complex solutions.
It is not just a question of emotional intelligence. As an autistic person, this is really a weak point in my statistics.
I'm simply not stupid enough to fall for their ideas.
I agree, there are always occasions where things will be different as you demonstrate
yes. the whole "liberals require empathy" thing comes of as moral masturbation to me. like everyone else is incapable of it or something.
Not strictly necessarily. For me, it comes down to logic, reason, and evidence.
I’m neurodivergent. This means that among some mild cognitive superpowers, I also have some significant weaknesses, such as an inability to understand or even recognize the inner workings of others. Essentially, the first half of your second sentence, above. That simply isn’t in my wheelhouse, no matter how hard I try. It’s analogous to asking a blind person to pick out the colour red.
But I reach the same place - the second half of the second sentence - by using logic and reason and evidence (usually via science) to come to an understanding of what is correct and good and right and how the needs of others simply don’t restrict my own personal needs in any way, and so carry equally as much importance and have all the same ability to be fulfilled without conflict. And because some of these people are disadvantaged or oppressed, it is my duty as a fucking human being to have their back whenever I have a decent opportunity to do so.
So interesting... to me (I don't think my brain profile particularly gets in the way of my daily life) what you describe is the prefrontal cortex version of empathy, but empathy nontheless.
Salutations, fellow human :)
Equating left with lib. Love it. Thanks, appropriator.
What a well thought out response, perfectly formulated to start an informed discussion.
Stop sniffing your own farts and don't look a gift horse in the mouth
Whats the gift here? Do you know the origin of that phrase?
Of course. There's a reason why conservatives don't want the masses educated. Because they'd see how much they're getting fucked by said conservatives.
That's why they've been attacking public schools for decades, and why they push religion in schools.
The kids of the filthy rich go to private schools that teach capitalism the same way they have for generations.
And how to win at it and defend it from democracy
In USA, conservatives are fine with educating the masses, but they want it to be a Christian education.
Which I can tell you is practically worthless, I mean, look at me. Stuffed full of useless Bible knowledge that I can't discuss in civilized company. I didn't even learn about critical thinking until my 20s. Blew my mind
Higher IQ is also associated with higher Critical Thinking Skills, which help you recognize and avoid conservative propaganda.
IQ testing is pseudoscience. It's one of the preferred methods of the far right to try to differentiate between races for that very reason. Pseudoscience is a lot more malleable for their purposes than the settled science that says race doesn't exist biologically.
Having a "high IQ" is only proof that you're good at IQ tests.
Veritasium made a video talking about IQ tests, their validity and so on. https://youtu.be/FkKPsLxgpuY
One of my key takeaways: IQ tests have some validity as a diagnostic tool for asessing cognitive disabilities or illnesses, but they should not be taken as serious and significant as many less informed people seem to do.
For your own privacy, and the privacy of everybody else interacting with you.
When you share a YouTube link, if you don't remove the
si=ID, anybody that clicks on that link will then be associated with you. It's one of the tools Google uses to track your internet usage.Thank you!
Veritasium is the puppet of an investment firm.
Your takeaway on IQ is accurate.
One of my key takeaways is that it may have some value in aggregate, like this study, but does not tell an individual how smart they are
Also see it as a tool, I do think that tool has to be adapted to the region to be usefull. A Dutch or French IQ test (not even language related) would not be usefull in Brazil or Namibia. As far as I know to be usefull it needs to be based on local education and living situations.
It's not completely pseudo-science, as there are a lot of correlations with things like academic success or job performance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations
Oh yea, so does your zip code.
--Isaac Asimov, "Thinking About Thinking," 1975
Great quote, thanks!
I think that extreme upper and lower bounds do say something, but few point differences are entirely worthless. Scoring a 70 is rather significant, and 160 probably is too, but 100 vs 90 vs 110? Meaningless.
its better then getting a low score on a IQ test.
"The current study showed that high intelligence does not, as one might assume, lead to radical political positions. Instead, highly gifted adults are on average just as politically diverse and moderate as the rest of the population."
Well that headline is...misleading.
Imagining a world where the headlines aren't click bait and the articles are well researched. One day...
You'd need media that wasn't predicated on advertising revenues.
Fuck IQ. Literally political stance is a better measurement of intelligence.
Wait...
I'm bucking the trend
Nah. You might consider yourself as not intelligent (that's your opinion, I can't say since I don't know you), but you have empathy. And it's that, empathy (or lack of), what we should link to conservatism. I'll take a dumb but empathetic person over a smart but psychopathic asshole every time.
Hear hear!
I also love self depreciating humour!
It's not as good as it used to be.
Hey-oh
Options: More conservative or lower IQ
Implication: Option #2
Secondary analysis: Good person
Interaction behavior: Amicable, but simple
Thanks, youre pretty swell yourself :).
I like to say that I am smart enough to know im not :D, but, at least I like progressive policies.
Gorsh
horseshoe axiom tells us this is also true of the far left
the peer reviewed and reproduced lemmy experiment corroborates this theory
Not much reproduction happening here
This is because reality itself has a strong left-leaning bias, and intelligence makes you encounter that a lot more as you interact with reality.
Sure, there are highly intelligent right-wingers, but intelligence only gives you the cognitive tools to discover reality, it doesn’t force you to use them. Just because a person is intelligent doesn’t mean they can’t slide off into wharrderp fantasy land.
Well there are also a lot of rich intelligent conservatives who are only there because it's the best place from which to exploit everyone else for further gain.
Yep
Plenty of psychopaths and sociopaths amongst them
In before everyone trashes IQ for being racist and pointless.
And I'm not saying it isn't ethnocentric and a bit arbitrary. But walk around a Mensa meeting and you'll see things in common.
Mostly that everyone is really socially inept if not outright problematic.
But 90% liberal, yeah.
Mensa is not a good selector. First off it not that high of an IQ requirement, second, they have to want to join Mensa. Real brilliant folks have little interest.
Let's not pretend that the bright people skip MENSA to join the Federalist Society.
There's a reason Trump switched parties to run for President, and it wasn't because he wanted to target the best and brightest. He wanted rubes and he got them.
Isn't the requirement 130? That's decently high, no?
Definitely agree that you're selecting for people who want to show off and take a bit too much pride in their IQ score though if you're focusing only on MENSA members.
Yeah 130, which is 2 percentile I believe. Smartest one out of 50 people. That is not smart enough to be special, but just enough to be insufferable.
That's why I'm top of the bell curve, babbyyyyyy
IQ is racist? It think it's generally accepted that good culturally neutral IQ test don't exists and you can't use it to test differences between races. I think the only problem is that some racists don't understand this and still try.
Are you claiming that anyone who believes in IQ tests is racist, or that specific racist people are using IQ tests, or what?
I'm claiming that racist people look at differences in some standardized IQ tests between western countries and the rest of the world and claim those prove white people have higher IQs while the science understands that IQ tests can't be used to compare people from different cultures.
I'd be interested to know if the people decrying IQ tests in this thread could accurately describe one.
Men with high net worth are more conservative leaning?! Isn't that weird. Learning about the world builds compassion, while feeding your own greed breeds self interest. So weird. Remind me why we ask the opinions of rich people again?
Because if we make them feel valued they might give you some money. Do this enough times and you can be a rich asshole too!
I think there's a litany of problems with this assertion.
Firstly the sample size is 150 people, too small for any meaningful conclusion.
Secondly the article doesn't make any attempt at a causal relationship. Are men with higher IQs more progressive because they have higher IQs? Or is there some other reason.
One hypothesis is simply that students in the 80s and 90s who were more comfortable with STEM work (and IQ tests) were more likely to go on to tertiary academic studies, and we know that there is a causal relationship between academic achievement and progressive politics. Given the era, perhaps women were less likely to follow that path than their male counterparts.
I'm not saying that's the answer, it's just an example of how statistical links aren't always helpful.
Edit: most of what I said is really dumb and wrong!
150 is actually appropriate for this type of study and effect size.
Especially considering it was a longitudinal study that spanned 35 years. Impressive they could maintain that many participants.
Sure we could always use bigger samples but 150 is really good actually.
Secondly.
Causal research is a whole other thing.
Correlation research comes first. Once that's established , Then causal research.
Causal research is much more different to conduct for social factors like this. Nearly impossible actually.
So don't be surprised when such research doesn't exist.
You can't manipulate someone's IQ. And you can't really manipulate their political leaning.
There is no real way to run an experimental study to find out causes.
Best you can do is find more correlations.
Do we know that? That's actually a very strong claim, significantly stronger than the OP's claim of correlation. For a comment about skepticism of statistical links, your rebuttal is more problematic than the original claim.
Ran across a paper years ago that did confirm this, but laid out various reasons why, including:
As the saying goes, your kid didn’t become a “dirty leftist/commie” because they were indoctrinated by their professors. They became one as a reaction to being exposed to the wider world and all of its variety.
But was causality established? That's a very difficult thing to do. I'd like to read the paper if you can find it.
Because it's just as plausible that people predisposed to think critically are more likely to both go to college and move left politically in early adulthood.
Oh well, I can't be right about everything I guess. Happy to be wrong on this.
I mean, I find it interesting that this pattern does not exist among women.
Too bad the article doesn't actually link the study.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398528748_Exploring_exceptional_minds_Political_orientations_of_gifted_adults
EDIT: Oops, originally just linked to a figure from the document, heh.
Meanwhile, me:
*holding triangle block piece
...and you know what hole that goes in? That's right, the square hole.
Correlation doesn't imply causation, you can be a liberal and a dumb dumb, ask me how I know.
i'm more of a dingus
Teacher: “Good job Snot Flickerman, here’s a jar of paste you can eat.”
https://youtu.be/6pDH66X3ClA right?
I will count of the list of Conservative scientists:
End of list
Traditional values are a crutch for the intellectually unambitious and a cudgel for the ambitious.
"My social media isn't an echo chamber"
"Solid ice colder than liquid water, study finds."
Proof that academia cultures the left, neglecting real science like the fact that you can pressurize water into ice while preserving its warmth!
~ a conservative somewhere
Yeah, well, I've never felt smarter than when conversing with a conservative.
So IQ is still a valid measuring method is it?
The criteria for what counts as "valid measure method" is not "metrics that would make your ingroup look good".
Why would it not?
https://simplyputpsych.co.uk/psych-101-1/criticism-of-the-iq-test
That's saying we don't force a single test on the entire planet's population...
Which we wouldn't do for anything.
It doesn't make IQ tests worthless, and the only way someone could make that leap to think they are, is if they don't know anything about testing
For one reason, IQ tests rely heavily on logic puzzles. Studies have shown these can be improved on with practice, so the test isn’t necessarily measuring anything innate. It’s just testing whether one has familiarity with logic puzzles. Which, coincidentally is more likely to be the case if one happens to be white and especially if you’re wealthy.
I think good IQ tests take "familiarity with logic puzzles" into account. They try to take everything in to account. When I was doing research on working memory we were using very simple tests that relied heavily on working memory and correlated with IQ tests well. Those test didn't use any type of logic puzzles white people are more familiar with. IQ is not a perfect score but it was known for a very long time that comparing people from different cultures and background is very difficult if at all possible. This doesn't mean that IQ tests can't be used to compare people with similar backgrounds and that you can't develop better, culturally neutral tests.
Yeah I wasn't trying to say that IQ tests are worthless, just that they are not the objective measure of intelligence that people think they are. They may measure a certain kind of intelligence amongst people with similar upbringings and opportunities, but all I'm trying to say is that having a higher IQ than someone doesn't necessarily mean you are "smarter" than them.
In any case, I certainly wasn't expecting multiple people wanting to argue with me about IQ tests on the internet today. I think I'm going to stop replying to this thread now lol
so... ones ability to interpret, quickly react, apply knowledge, and intelligence is not the best? sound like a fairly good marker to me.
The point is that you get better at it with practice. IQ tests claim to measure objective "intelligence" as trait that is independent of education, advantage, or other factors. But if a large portion of the test involves exercises that can be improved with practice, IQ cannot be an objective measure.
so its good if you don't practice then?
No, I'm sorry but none of that is uncontrollable
Sure, by using a different measure of intelligence than IQ.
I mean...
I took a Weschler and a college class on testing methods taught by the head of my university's psych department...
How much do you know about quantying intelligence?
Did you read a blog post?
As a high IQ person I would like to remind everyone that IQ has been coopted by a scientific racism and eugenics agenda, and the originator, a French man by the name of Alfred Binet,
We can only assume that any correlation in beliefs and scoring is the product of an environment which tends to produce both or inhibits the production of both. IE Fox News makes you dumb, and Fox News makes you conservative, concurrently. The study does not mention TV.
I wonder if there’s a similar study that uses executive capacity (multitasking etc.) as a more objective measure of intelligence. When I was in school, this was the most supported way to objectively measure intelligence (but of course, is that actually intelligence? Intelligence is just a word we have. Having the word doesn’t mean that the concept exists.)
Maybe, but I think that's still going to be a function of environment vs innate. There's not really an objective measure when existence is subjective, and an individual's capacity for effort is very dependent on their resources that they can consume. All sorts of effort, not just intellectual.
Okay but I'm not smart.
Knowing you aren't smart makes you smarter than all the people who think they are smart but actually aren't.
That was a complete sentence with punctuation and a clause. Youre smarter than every living 'conservative'.
Reminds me of an old Rehab lyric:
I'm going to ignore all the issues with this study, and just be happy there are people out there finding the data that shows conservatism is stupidity.
That sounds pretty stupid to me :D
Still less stupid than "the bible says so!" when they clearly haven't read it
Or anything...
All in good fun
I know, that's why I added the ":D"
A fact so obvious and apparent only a German would even bother asking.
....and are cunning linguists too!
hello ladies
I'm not a pheasant plucker, I'm a lussy picker.
Caring about IQ is stupid even when it validates your preconceptions.
Disregarding peer reviewed data is even worse I'd argue
I'll regard it, but I'm not sure what useful conclusions can be drawn from it. This seems like polarization bait that lets left-of-center types feel smug about how much smarter they are than conservatives, and right-of-center types can indulge in a good pity party about how biased those socialist Europeans are against conservatives. Something for everybody, accomplishing nothing. Who gives a fuck about who has the higher IQ? What has it to do with whether a persons actions are just or unjust? Even if we take for granted that IQ is a reasonable measure of intelligence, intelligent people are just as capable of doing terrible, selfish things.
Imagine a scenario where this same study was conducted but it found that conservative men had higher IQs. Same study, same methodological rigor, different result. How would your opinions or beliefs about the world change? Would you be inclined to think that maybe conservatives are perhaps going about things the right way, by virtue of this study? I would hope not. Even if we could measure intelligence, hell, if we could even define intelligence cogently and comprehensively, what impact should that have on our decision making? Are "smarter" people considered more right? Or should statements be evaluated on their individual merits, regardless of the quantified "smartness" of the person who said them?
I think it should be the latter. IQ is at best a curiosity and it should have no place in the evaluation of government or social policy. Thank you for coming to my soapbox harangue.
Well said.
click-bait
Um ackshually It's 'rage bait', specifically for conservatives.
Click bait entices anyone to click through omitted information. Rage bait seeks a click through an emotional reaction from a specific demographic.
Clickbait:
"Local Restaurant Owner Tried One Menu Change and Sales Doubled Overnight"
"A Mom Working 3 Jobs Lost 60 lbs By Cutting This One Ingredient From Her Diet"
Ragebait:
"Study Finds Conservativel Men Have Smaller Penises Than Liberal Men."
"New Data Shows Remote Workers May Be Less Valuable Than In-Office Staff"
Not all ragebait is clickbait. Ragebait is targeted. Know your enemy.
It's also just reporting the findings of a study, which also tracks.
Breaking News: Conservatives tend to be dumber; more at 11!
So what determines it in women?
Religion and safety. They have to be surrounded by it and buying in is the only way the think they will stay on this side of the dirt.
It's probably also more difficult to find a significant difference because women overall tend to be significantly better educated and more liberal from the outset.
I am pretty sure that I would flunk IQ tests, and I have leftist preferences. Mathematics and other subjects of high learning are not something I really understand. While I appreciate neat things like electricity, chemistry, design, and AI, I simply don't understand them to any meaningful extent.
That sucks. I would like to have a character sheet with +10 bonuses across the board, and a platinum piece to start my game with. Same goes for the rest of the neighborhood.
There's no flunking an IQ test, but you are probably a normal median person.
The fact they don't think they're a genius and know their limits suggests they're probably smarter than average. I've found the dumbest people have an unshakable confidence they're always correct.
I honestly wouldn't have expected this, unless IQ was also correlated to empathy somehow
A lot of the sections in an IQ test involve prefrontal cortex which also handled empathy.
I think there was a big educational push to leverage empathy in planning.
Like adding in motivation for why Suzy has a need for two or your apples, that involves empathy drive up scores.
Perhaps you plan for one, but end up selecting for another accidentally.
yes and/or duh
Wtf happened to me then
Lead paint I'm guessing
IQ is bullshit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Ji0bU-fc8
In my opinion IQ measures only a narrow field of the brains capabilities. Namely logical thinking.
What a surprise!
"The current study showed that high intelligence does not, as one might assume, lead to radical political positions. Instead, highly gifted adults are on average just as politically diverse and moderate as the rest of the population."
I'm confused. More intelligence means more liberal but very high intelligence aka gifted — diverse views?
Lots of very bright people support the right wing of politics because they stand to personally gain
Being smart doesn't mean that you're ethical or capable of empathy
Thoughts:
You have to be in a position of power to make meaningful change.
To rise to such a position requires sacrificing some morals and breaking a few eggs.
The higher you rise the more wealth you need to punch up to accomplish your goals from those who don't respect you.
As the richest person in the world you now need to fend off all detractors, keep your frenemies happy to stop them turning on you, and use your power to finally make meaningful change, through several layers of lost perspective and forgotten empathy
My take is that high IQ correlates to "left", but extreme high IQ doesn't mean "extreme left" (for a lack of a better expression).
Basically, your ideology won't be an outlier just because your IQ is very high. It will only tend to be less conservative than those with lower IQ.
I would rather see the opposite, how extreme ideologies correlate to very low IQ.
Not a super fan of IQ in general and this story is probably massaging our biases a bit too much for me to lean too much into it with limited understanding.
More educated people tend to understand and vale nuance.
An issue with understanding nuance is that you can use it to justify doing things that tend to favor yourself.
I think being knowledgeable leads someone to be more liberal than they otherwise would have been. Less inclined to fear the outgroup and fear change. This is why a college degree is so associated with liberalism. I don't know how well that corresponds to IQ, which itself is kind of wishy washy.
IQ has nothing to do with being knowledgeable. Shit headlines like this play into the exact same eugenics theory of humanity that gooners like RFK Jr and Peter Thiel have been pushing.
It's quite literally just a measurement of one's pattern recognition speed. Has nothing to do with your politics.
Case in point, Christopher Langan, who regularly outperformed on these cognition tests, was a total nerd on trivia, and ended up becoming a forest ranger because he had a perpetual chip on his shoulder. Once his reputation blew up as someone who could ace cognitive tests, he leveraged that into becoming a right-wing grifter.
The guy is a total piece of shit who tests well. Go out to any of the Ivy League universities and you'll find this kind of person in spades. Silicon Valley, the DC Beltway, Wall Street, Raytheon Acres, the Florida Real Estate scene - very intelligent assholes are a dime a dozen. FFS, we built our rocket labs on Nazi scientists. No shortage of right-wingers in the "High IQ" space.
Yeah, being knowledgeable is quantifiable. IQ is wishy washy and easily misused
Duh.
And in an unrelated news, study call dumb to right wingers.
This isn’t enough info right? Wouldn’t we need to know the baseline before they state women dont shift to the left at a higher IQ?
Like if when are 80% progressive already, a high IQ might make them 85% progressive
But if men are 30% progressive an a high IQ makes them 70% progressive.
So you’re saying I’m the smartest man alive? Thanks?
What?? Sorry, the penises are blocking my view. Just too many penises. I hope its not an article trying to say something about how smart people who don't have a sea of penises before them are. Yeah, just way too many penises. Some would say "totally not conservative".
DAT ASS THO!
Shit like this always gets posted. There's not much meaningful connection between IQ and political views. Especially in a country like the US where both "sides" of the spectrum are just the same government with varying degrees of corporate cuckoldry
Okay? But this particular study was conducted in Germany. Not everything is about the US 🙄 also, we all know they're all morons over there anyway
The study is about views, not party affiliation. In US both parties are the same but their voters definitely are not equally conservative. Republican voters wanted their party to be more fascist for a long time (and Trump delivered), democratic voters want their party to be way more progressive than it actually is.