This rhetoric is often in the media and is widely publicized online. New studies have claimed to have found a link, but in my research the link is weak. And even if these studies were true, the results are being used incorrectly. The studies only argue conservatives are predisposed to idiocy, not inherently linked to it. However the headlines are usually "conservatives are less intelligent". This presumes an inherent link, which has yet to be true. To the contrary, some of the smartest people I know are Conservative. There are a few things I will point out:
1) First, IQ is merely an abstract intelligence. In most practical and preformance intelligence tests, Conservatives tend to score better. IQ tests fail to measure many other intelligences--creativity and social skills--which in many cases is closer linked to success and productivity. Unlike IQ tests, the social tests can measure other intelligences as well as inner senses that actually influence daily choices more then IQ. What is interesting is that Conservatives are often more wealthy, have better relationships, children less likely to do drugs or crime, and are generally happier. IQ testing that "proves" liberal intelligence is not very valid anyway (and that is assuming the studies claiming those results are valid).[1]
2) Shawn T. Smith: a psychologist, has severely criticized the main study for the Liberals are smarter link. Kanazawa has been actually kicked out of psychology today for his inaccuracies and wacky theories (like Asians are not creative and all black women are attractive). He claims that people that identify as "very liberal" are 11.6 IQ points more intelligent then those who would identify as "very conservative" (where I would identify myself). As Smith rightly argues, at the beginning, even if liberals were more intelligent, a 12 point IQ gap woudl be astonishing. He said it could be true, but such a large result should be met with skepticism and methodology should be questioned. In peer review, this should happen, but Smith points out although most studies like this have poor methodology they get welcomed because of academic bias. Smith argues the study was made to get a desired outcome. Kanazawa does not measure IQ, rather verbal intelligence -- interestingly I score fairly well on those -- regardless, Smith makes a well articulated point: merely measuring verbal skills ignores many other intelligences (practical, social, etc.) Smith notes many Conservatives score lower on these tests, and are therefore more likely to drop out of school. This does not refute my premise, though. These men generally enter different fields: mechanics, painters, and many other jobs that often require a lot of intelligence. In other words, Kanazawa focuses on the wrong skills making the illusion that Conservatives are less intelligent, and when you take into account the many things Conservatives do they often score better then liberals. Smith gives us a good chart:
The left: Smith's prefered test
Right: Kanazawas's
Smith's side measures many more data points. Kanazawa merely ignores this for a simple reason: the left side would prove Conservatives are more intelligent. As Smith notes, "Moreover, children who struggle with [verbal intelligence] but who have perfectly solid PIQ (to be simple: other intelligences) scores are more likely than their counterparts to drop out of school (Romi & Marom, 2007). That does not make them unintelligent, but simply intellectually mismatched for a word-based academic environment. These children may even be more intelligent, on balance, than their classmates."[2] Emphasis mine, clarifications mine.
I would again like to emphasis: these children may actually be smarter. Same for the adults polled, these tests merely exclude other more important levels of intelligence. So those adults may be smarter then their peers, but it does not seem that way because processing speed (very important) memory (still important), a lot of verbal skills still ignored, and perceptional reasoning. Many of these verbally challenged Conservatives that drop out of school go into very hard jobs, as explained, like mechanics. They would likely score higher on the memory and processing speeds. Kanazawas study was bogus.
3) One might have noticed I said above most academics are liberal. Academics are intelligent, and are liberal, so liberals are smarter right? There are onerous exams and schooling needed to become an academic. As stated, some Conservatives to poorly in school (I am not an average one, I suppose). This likely lowers Conservative academics to a small minority. Even so, many of the smartest academics are Conservative, namely John Lott, Robert P. George, etc. The slowest (the longest is usually takes) to get a Ph.D. could be eight years, or at least in the economics profession. Even if the "majority" of the academics are liberal, that would not refute the premise that Conservatives are just as smart (or smarter) on balance then liberals.
4) Hudson and Busseri also did a study (instead its newer: 2012). They used better tests then Kanazawa and linked Conservatism to prejudice. May I first, note, on a personal level, this saddens me: my best friend is an African American, my mother is Puerto Rican, and the majority of my friends are Mexican. On another note, their study didn't really test racism or preferences. It merely asserted it, or it did to my knowledge (I need to find a PDF for it), and used logic (Right-Wingers hate change, therefore are racist). This study forgets many things. First, JFK was a Conservative: he was for tax cuts and deregulation, and was a social Conservative (like most people of that time). Lincoln was in the Republican party which identified as the Conservative anti-slavery party. And by today's standards, both could run in a Republican primary and equal Rick Santorum (Santorum 2016, by the way). The Republican party platform under JFK is very similar to the one today, and they were the largest force for racial equality. Being liberal does not disqualify someone from racism. The USSR was very liberal—liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face—and Hitler was racist (in one of my posts I explain how he is a racist. And a Huppi.com article was grossly false, they called him "pro-gun", when he banned them...) Other studies finding Conservatives are less intelligent and less resourceful (like Hudson and Busseri) and are 100% anti-change have been flawed. Smith write a 2007 article in which he concludes, "It appears as though the correlations between ideology and personality cannot be supported. In fact, it is entirely unclear what this study actually measured."[3]
5) Many people have argued Conservatives are less informed. But other surveys find that Conservatives are more informed and, unlike Hudson et. al., more open minded (open mined isn't prejudice). A Pew Research study has different results, "GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party."[4] The largest question Republicans had was 30%, while democrats largest lead was only 8%. And remember education? That Pew poll actually found many Republicans had better education then their Democrat colleges. The poll also showed intellectual honesty. Democrats would change their view to make themselves look good, while Conservatives only changed with proper reasoning.[4]
6) Another blogger notes many problems with liberalism. He shows liberalism failure to look in the long term and focus on the bust, when they should be focusing on the boom. They think Keynesian is a good idea, when it is merely a paradox. DanT made these pictures on debate.org explaining liberal economics:
They are posted here: http://www.debate.org/DanT/photos/album/1678/
His profile here: http://www.debate.org/DanT/
Liberals fail to see how their short term fixes do not fix anything and, in the long run, end the same: recession. The blogger also notes liberal logic is merely emotional and (often) lacks reasoning. Although some liberals can make a logical point, the majority of them (even the intelligent ones) often do not make logical points. I will not disclose names, but I was speaking with someone on campaign finance reform. I used a logical argument showing how that is against the free market, unconstitutional, and how money does not influence votes in congress (Freedomnomics makes a good point there, don't need to waste letters on it), and the person merely responded: "the truth hurts, you will see it when you are older. The system is owned by big oil companies and the Cato Institute. And it will slap you in the face when you age." What a weak point, he dodged my points and had to dance around it. Liberals have failed to prove to me superior intelligence.[5]
*****************
I have made my point. Liberals are not smarter, and are only as smart (or less smart) then their Conservative brethren.
P.S. I wrote this fairly fast, although I think this is a robust piece. I don't have much time anymore, though I will soon. I hope you forgive me if there are glaring grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.
1. Folks, Jeffrey. "Are Libs Smarter?" American Thinker, 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
2. Smith, Shawn T., Psy.D. "Are Liberals More Intelligent than Conservatives? Another Broken Study Says It Is So." Iron Shrink RSS., 7 Apr. 2010. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
3. Smith, Shawn T., Psy.D. "How to Spot a Broken Study: The Baby Conservative Project." Iron Shrink RSS., 14 Feb. 2007. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
4. Munro, Neil. "The Daily Caller." The Daily Caller. N.p., 2012. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
5. The blogger I kept talking about blogs here: http://commentarama.blogspot.com/2012/03/conservatives-are-smarter-than-liberals.html
1) First, IQ is merely an abstract intelligence. In most practical and preformance intelligence tests, Conservatives tend to score better. IQ tests fail to measure many other intelligences--creativity and social skills--which in many cases is closer linked to success and productivity. Unlike IQ tests, the social tests can measure other intelligences as well as inner senses that actually influence daily choices more then IQ. What is interesting is that Conservatives are often more wealthy, have better relationships, children less likely to do drugs or crime, and are generally happier. IQ testing that "proves" liberal intelligence is not very valid anyway (and that is assuming the studies claiming those results are valid).[1]
2) Shawn T. Smith: a psychologist, has severely criticized the main study for the Liberals are smarter link. Kanazawa has been actually kicked out of psychology today for his inaccuracies and wacky theories (like Asians are not creative and all black women are attractive). He claims that people that identify as "very liberal" are 11.6 IQ points more intelligent then those who would identify as "very conservative" (where I would identify myself). As Smith rightly argues, at the beginning, even if liberals were more intelligent, a 12 point IQ gap woudl be astonishing. He said it could be true, but such a large result should be met with skepticism and methodology should be questioned. In peer review, this should happen, but Smith points out although most studies like this have poor methodology they get welcomed because of academic bias. Smith argues the study was made to get a desired outcome. Kanazawa does not measure IQ, rather verbal intelligence -- interestingly I score fairly well on those -- regardless, Smith makes a well articulated point: merely measuring verbal skills ignores many other intelligences (practical, social, etc.) Smith notes many Conservatives score lower on these tests, and are therefore more likely to drop out of school. This does not refute my premise, though. These men generally enter different fields: mechanics, painters, and many other jobs that often require a lot of intelligence. In other words, Kanazawa focuses on the wrong skills making the illusion that Conservatives are less intelligent, and when you take into account the many things Conservatives do they often score better then liberals. Smith gives us a good chart:
The left: Smith's prefered test
Right: Kanazawas's
Smith's side measures many more data points. Kanazawa merely ignores this for a simple reason: the left side would prove Conservatives are more intelligent. As Smith notes, "Moreover, children who struggle with [verbal intelligence] but who have perfectly solid PIQ (to be simple: other intelligences) scores are more likely than their counterparts to drop out of school (Romi & Marom, 2007). That does not make them unintelligent, but simply intellectually mismatched for a word-based academic environment. These children may even be more intelligent, on balance, than their classmates."[2] Emphasis mine, clarifications mine.
I would again like to emphasis: these children may actually be smarter. Same for the adults polled, these tests merely exclude other more important levels of intelligence. So those adults may be smarter then their peers, but it does not seem that way because processing speed (very important) memory (still important), a lot of verbal skills still ignored, and perceptional reasoning. Many of these verbally challenged Conservatives that drop out of school go into very hard jobs, as explained, like mechanics. They would likely score higher on the memory and processing speeds. Kanazawas study was bogus.
3) One might have noticed I said above most academics are liberal. Academics are intelligent, and are liberal, so liberals are smarter right? There are onerous exams and schooling needed to become an academic. As stated, some Conservatives to poorly in school (I am not an average one, I suppose). This likely lowers Conservative academics to a small minority. Even so, many of the smartest academics are Conservative, namely John Lott, Robert P. George, etc. The slowest (the longest is usually takes) to get a Ph.D. could be eight years, or at least in the economics profession. Even if the "majority" of the academics are liberal, that would not refute the premise that Conservatives are just as smart (or smarter) on balance then liberals.
4) Hudson and Busseri also did a study (instead its newer: 2012). They used better tests then Kanazawa and linked Conservatism to prejudice. May I first, note, on a personal level, this saddens me: my best friend is an African American, my mother is Puerto Rican, and the majority of my friends are Mexican. On another note, their study didn't really test racism or preferences. It merely asserted it, or it did to my knowledge (I need to find a PDF for it), and used logic (Right-Wingers hate change, therefore are racist). This study forgets many things. First, JFK was a Conservative: he was for tax cuts and deregulation, and was a social Conservative (like most people of that time). Lincoln was in the Republican party which identified as the Conservative anti-slavery party. And by today's standards, both could run in a Republican primary and equal Rick Santorum (Santorum 2016, by the way). The Republican party platform under JFK is very similar to the one today, and they were the largest force for racial equality. Being liberal does not disqualify someone from racism. The USSR was very liberal—liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face—and Hitler was racist (in one of my posts I explain how he is a racist. And a Huppi.com article was grossly false, they called him "pro-gun", when he banned them...) Other studies finding Conservatives are less intelligent and less resourceful (like Hudson and Busseri) and are 100% anti-change have been flawed. Smith write a 2007 article in which he concludes, "It appears as though the correlations between ideology and personality cannot be supported. In fact, it is entirely unclear what this study actually measured."[3]
5) Many people have argued Conservatives are less informed. But other surveys find that Conservatives are more informed and, unlike Hudson et. al., more open minded (open mined isn't prejudice). A Pew Research study has different results, "GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party."[4] The largest question Republicans had was 30%, while democrats largest lead was only 8%. And remember education? That Pew poll actually found many Republicans had better education then their Democrat colleges. The poll also showed intellectual honesty. Democrats would change their view to make themselves look good, while Conservatives only changed with proper reasoning.[4]
6) Another blogger notes many problems with liberalism. He shows liberalism failure to look in the long term and focus on the bust, when they should be focusing on the boom. They think Keynesian is a good idea, when it is merely a paradox. DanT made these pictures on debate.org explaining liberal economics:
They are posted here: http://www.debate.org/DanT/photos/album/1678/
His profile here: http://www.debate.org/DanT/
Liberals fail to see how their short term fixes do not fix anything and, in the long run, end the same: recession. The blogger also notes liberal logic is merely emotional and (often) lacks reasoning. Although some liberals can make a logical point, the majority of them (even the intelligent ones) often do not make logical points. I will not disclose names, but I was speaking with someone on campaign finance reform. I used a logical argument showing how that is against the free market, unconstitutional, and how money does not influence votes in congress (Freedomnomics makes a good point there, don't need to waste letters on it), and the person merely responded: "the truth hurts, you will see it when you are older. The system is owned by big oil companies and the Cato Institute. And it will slap you in the face when you age." What a weak point, he dodged my points and had to dance around it. Liberals have failed to prove to me superior intelligence.[5]
*****************
I have made my point. Liberals are not smarter, and are only as smart (or less smart) then their Conservative brethren.
P.S. I wrote this fairly fast, although I think this is a robust piece. I don't have much time anymore, though I will soon. I hope you forgive me if there are glaring grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.
1. Folks, Jeffrey. "Are Libs Smarter?" American Thinker, 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
2. Smith, Shawn T., Psy.D. "Are Liberals More Intelligent than Conservatives? Another Broken Study Says It Is So." Iron Shrink RSS., 7 Apr. 2010. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
3. Smith, Shawn T., Psy.D. "How to Spot a Broken Study: The Baby Conservative Project." Iron Shrink RSS., 14 Feb. 2007. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
4. Munro, Neil. "The Daily Caller." The Daily Caller. N.p., 2012. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
5. The blogger I kept talking about blogs here: http://commentarama.blogspot.com/2012/03/conservatives-are-smarter-than-liberals.html
How do you explain social conservatives belief in young earth theory? Which is idiotic, if not insane. And the conservative denial of climate change? Which is obviously a propaganda tactic of the Big Oil/Coal industries.
ReplyDeleteI am a social conservative, but fully agree with evolution and old earth theory. In fact, there is a religious group which attempts to demonstrate that an old earth exists and that creationism is flawed (http://oldearth.org/). But to argue that people are stupid for the belief in a young world is false. I know many intelligent, well read, and scientific people who think the earth is 10,000 years old. Are they correct? No, but they are not idiotic. The reason they disagree with evolution is due to social reasons from their religion. However, the Catholic Church officially supports evolution. And the vast majority of christians who believe in a young earth dont understand that it is not contradictory to their religion. It is a matter of ignorance on the topic, not stupidity.
DeleteWhen it comes to climate change, there are lots of reasons to oppose the "consensus". The models have made false predictions, there has been a strong link to solar causes (see Soon and Legates 2013, Svensmark 1997, etc.), a possible link to oceanic causes, no tropospheric hotspot, and the list goes on. To argue that skeptics are bought out by big oil is, actually, "idiotic, if not insane", to put it in your words. The vast majority of funding in this business comes from the government. The government has no reason to fund climatology unless there is a problem. If there is a warming problem, climatologists get the money. Therefore, the only way for them to make money is to claim there is a problem--there is a vested interest to create fear. The top 10 published skeptic authors have received no, or very little, oil funds (http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/05/are-skeptical-scientists-funded-by.html). The US government has spent 79 billion on climate change research, which dwarfs what big oil could have possibly spent (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html).
While the author had an issue or two with the difference between "then" and "than", he just took your entire argument and managed to take an enormous dump on it. I have always leaned more to the right, so I may be a little bias, but his article was pure logical, reasonable, and articulate reasoning. Seemed somewhat rushed at the end for the sake of time, but every argument made it's pout clear and objective, while also showing sources for his information. Even his reply to your comment contained sources. You sir, have been logically, intellectually, and grammatically shat upon. Lol
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete