Atheism, Liberalism, Sexual Exclusivity, and Vegeterianism Linked to Higher IQ in Men

[RainMaker]

This guy has had some controversial studies in the past. Some of it makes sense, some doesn't.

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ - CNN.com

Was looking to find the actual study somewhere but can't seem to find it.

[SirFozzie]

which just proves that Atheist Non-Meat Eating Liberals are planning to take over the world!

[RainMaker]

See I think it can be viewed different ways. That because someone is intelligent, they then choose areas of society perhaps that they feel they should be in. Vegetarianism is by all accounts a social choice, and smarter people may have a brain that makes them feel like they need to do it to show their intelligence.

Basically vegeterians aren't smart, smart people just want to be vegetarians.

[JediKooter]

I'm not sold on the IQ thing when comparing a lot of things. Especially in this case where there's only a 6 to 11 point difference. What's the plus/minus on this study? Even if it's say, 3 to 5 points on the plus/minus fudge factor, that really makes it pretty trivial and insignificant. Is there really a huge difference between someone who has an IQ of 105 compared to someone that has one that is 100?

Interesting study, but, I don't think it shows much and too bad they didn't link to the actual study. Would like to have read a little deeper into it.

[dubb93]

Without reading the link is it really shocking that a bunch of sexual exclusive, liberal, atheist, vegetarians would tell everyone that they are so much smarter than the rest of us?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

which just proves that Atheist Non-Meat Eating Liberals are planning to take over the world!

You forgot Monogamous. Or possibly Masturbatory.

I guess sexual exclusivity could go either way unless you're ambidextrous with the latter, no?

[NewIdentity]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

which just proves that Atheist Non-Meat Eating Liberals are planning to take over the world!

You forgot to add virgin.

So, Virgin Atheist Non-Meat Eating Liberals are planning to take over the world!

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Or possibly Masturbatory.

I guess sexual exclusivity could go either way unless you're ambidextrous with the latter, no?

Great, we'll have a bunch of blind, hairy palmed dudes running around...

[NewIdentity]

Any idea what the last paragraph of the article means, or is trying to say?

"More intelligent people don't have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen," he said.

So, do smart or dumb people have big families?

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by NewIdentity

Any idea what the last paragraph of the article means, or is trying to say?



So, do smart or dumb people have big families?

I think he's saying there isn't correlation between being smart and the number of children you have.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Or possibly Masturbatory.

Only if you stay exclusive to the same hand...

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Only if you stay exclusive to the same hand...

What if you use both hands at once, is that a threesome?

[Danny]

Statistics can say anything you want them to say and it's highly suspicious that the actual data of the study is not included. Were other variables even accounted for?

For example, maybe people from bigger cities have higher IQ's and are also more likely to be liberal, exclusive, atheist whatever compared to that of small towns which may have lower IQ's and be much more likely to be conservative, religious, whatever. Seems to me vegetarianism for example is much more common in the cities where education is more prevalent and IQ's are likely to be higher. It doesn't have the lower IQ vegetarians dragging their score down from some small hick town.

Maybe individuals who are white or Asian are also more likely to be the things the study talked about compared to other minority populations resulting for the difference because studies show that white and Asian individuals score higher on IQ tests than other minorities.

Also, was this an actual study where hundreds or thousands of people received the same IQ test given in the same way? Or was it just what people reported having receiving on their IQ test? Or even if actual data, did people receive the same test?

Oh and the most obvious being liberal. Big cities with better education are more liberal compared to smaller less educated towns. And yes education does matter in regards to someone's IQ.

Needless to say, this is a worthless article.

[Greyroofoo]

Well we got a decent thread out of it

[Honolulu_Blue]

Based on the reactions to this study there seems to be quite a few overly sensitive conservative, god-loving, meat-eating manwhores 'round these here parts.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Based on the reactions to this study there seems to be quite a few overly sensitive conservative, god-loving, meat-eating manwhores 'round these here parts.

.

IQ and intelligence testing is a big part of the field I am going into (graduate student right now), and while this study is not really directly related, their use and misuse is a bit of a passionate subject for me

[RainMaker]

The article is just a summary of the results. It does say a large national sample, although reading through the full study would garner a better understanding of what that was.

I will say from reading some of the works of this psychologist in the past, he seems to almost do the opposite of what you'd expect from a psychologist. He puts nature ahead of nurture in many cases with not much evidence to support it.

[Danny]

I read the whole article. Large national sample doesn't mean much and actually is a reason why the results are less valid. It create more variables that are not accounted for such as location, race, ethnicity etc... If the study only measured these differences in a specific subset that included fewer variables, it would be more valid.

[RainMaker]

So in your previous statement, results focusing on one area like a city would be bad and could skew things. Now it's that a large national sample is less valid. Is there a sample in your opinion that is valid?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

What if you use both hands at once, is that a threesome?

What, at the same time? That's called "business as usual."

Oh, wait, larger *IQs*.

[Dutch]

That's a pretty big AND operator there...not sure how many people we are talking about here. 7 guys at Berkley?

[Danny]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So in your previous statement, results focusing on one area like a city would be bad and could skew things. Now it's that a large national sample is less valid. Is there a sample in your opinion that is valid?

I never said focusing on one area would be bad. What I said was that the results of that city (or really more big/small cities in general) could skew the results which is consistent with saying a large national sample is not valid. The key is the amount of variables unaccounted for. He makes all these inferences based on the results as if a casual factor was in play.

If you accounted for lets say ethnicity, maybe the results would not be true at all. It's not that the sample is necessarily bad, as there are ways to account for other variables in statistical studies, but that doesn't appear to be done here. Also, anytime you rely on survey type data, all you can do is make correlations, not draw casual conclusions as he appears to be trying to do.

[Danny]

And again I'm not saying the study is necessarily bad. The authors of the study may have simply been trying to find national correlations and there's nothing wrong with that.

It's the article, which is drawing casual conclusions from correlation data which is bad. And she is clearly doing so from the beginning and throughout the article.

[lighthousekeeper]

I think it's a crime how articles like this never provide a link to an actual study. Without looking at the actual study, you are forced to either take the findings (or worse yet some hack journalist's interpretation of the findings) on faith, or else just dismiss the findings. But as a monogamous, vegetarian, liberal, athiest dude, I don't feel compelled to immediately dismiss the study like others here.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Vegetarianism is by all accounts a social choice, and smarter people may have a brain that makes them feel like they need to do it to show their intelligence. Basically vegeterians aren't smart, smart people just want to be vegetarians.

A very misguided view of vegetarians. Your "all accounts" are incomplete at best. You overlook two major reason that people choose to be vegetarian: (1) health reasons (2) an empathy (feel free to roll your eyes here) for fellow creatures. Also, vegetarians often risk being thought of as less intelligent or crazy by others.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Without reading the link is it really shocking that a bunch of sexual exclusive, liberal, atheist, vegetarians would tell everyone that they are so much smarter than the rest of us?

For the record, the two who made the study were described in the story.

Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian."

Then again, conservatism and liberalism are also defined importantly in the article

The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines "liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people. It does not look at other factors that play into American political beliefs, such as abortion, gun control and gay rights.


"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.

I'd almost instead define that as selfish vs unselfish.

(But god forbid people actually read the article before commenting)

SI

[Dutch]

I'd almost instead define that as selfish vs unselfish.

Which is absolute rubbish.

Conservative: Don't take my money in the form of taxes!
(Selfish)

Liberal: Give me his money in the form of taxes!
(Selfish)

[Denial Of Freedom]

It would appear that many individuals here got so concerned about the topic they just completely skipped the first few paragraphs of the article when it talks about where the findings can be found. You know the yet to be published March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly. Even when it is published a link to the findings might not do you very well as it will cost money to even look at them.

[Sgran]

To be honest, there's nothing particularly surprising about these findings. These lifestyle choices require a boldness to question the status quo that is less likely to be found in mentally lazy people. That's not to say that smart people can't consider issues thoughtfully and decide to eat steak and vote republican, but rather that going against the grain -- especially with altruistic intent -- is a decision more likely to be taken by someone who who's been mentally aggressive enough to explore unpopular options.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by NewIdentity

So, do smart or dumb people have big families?

Some NSFW language.


- Free videos are just a click away

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

A very misguided view of vegetarians. Your "all accounts" are incomplete at best. You overlook two major reason that people choose to be vegetarian: (1) health reasons (2) an empathy (feel free to roll your eyes here) for fellow creatures. Also, vegetarians often risk being thought of as less intelligent or crazy by others.

Those are still choices to become vegetarians. Someone with a higher IQ may make that choice because they have read more and understand the negative effects of meat. Or take different perspectives when it comes to animals. And I still contend a lot of vegetarians choose that lifestyle due to social pressures or influences. If you are a high school dropout barely making it in the world, vegetarianism is probably the last thing on your mind and not a big social topic amongst peers.

[Sgran]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Those are still choices to become vegetarians. Someone with a higher IQ may make that choice because they have read more and understand the negative effects of meat. Or take different perspectives when it comes to animals. And I still contend a lot of vegetarians choose that lifestyle due to social pressures or influences. If you are a high school dropout barely making it in the world, vegetarianism is probably the last thing on your mind and not a big social topic amongst peers.

Hmm, interesting argument, but I have to chime in that one of my best friends dropped out of high school and became the first vegetarian I knew personally. I converted about 4 years later. He was one of those bright but underachieving guys who thought the Grateful Dead had much more wisdom to offer than secondary education.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So in your previous statement, results focusing on one area like a city would be bad and could skew things. Now it's that a large national sample is less valid. Is there a sample in your opinion that is valid?

I agree with what Danny said. If this study had just focused on the race(s) in certain areas where these traits were common, it would be a lot more meaningful. Not to sound overly racist, but if the study found that 60% of these people with the above traits were white, 30% were Asian and 10% were black - that alone would account for a higher IQ than the mainstream population (esp in regards to the high % of Asians). You'd need to make a comparison of a similar ethnic breakdown for people not having those traits and then see the results.

I would be very interested in the ethnic/race breakdown of the people in the liberal/atheist/monogamous/vegie group compared to the "normal" population.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by NewIdentity

Any idea what the last paragraph of the article means, or is trying to say?



So, do smart or dumb people have big families?

I don't know if smart versus dumb would be the right choice of words.

But I would think that ignorant people would be at greater...risk, I guess, for large family sizes. That's not to say that non-ignorant people wouldn't choose to have a large family. They might be able to afford it, it might be what they were used to growing up, etc.

But lower-education folks are going to especially be at risk, for several reasons. They may have low awareness about things like contraceptives (and where/how to get them), they may be more likely to believe sexual urban rumors like "you can't get pregnant the first time," and maybe most importantly, income level frequently correlates with education level. If one is low-income, sex is probably a higher-level recreational activity with one's partner than going to the movies or the baseball game. Don't cost nothin' to go upstairs, you know? Until, oops...nine months later...

Rinse, lather, repeat. Wind up with a family with four or five children, while a higher-income "smart" family ends up having one or two - the increased resources give them more options, both entertainment and reproductive, and baby-making ends up being a targeted action, rather than a byproduct of the act itself.