Of course, I TOTALLY agree with this new study. :)
Higher intelligence is associated with liberal political ideology, atheism, and men's (but not women's) preference for sexual exclusivity
More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.
The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years.
"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."
"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.
In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.
Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
Religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid.
5 comments:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_yourselves_on_the.php
Respondents were 18 to 28 years of age. On this sample we draw such sweeping conclusions? How many 18 year-olds have discovered their true political identity?
I was just going to send you this article -- Of course you found it first!
I'd be surprised if relative political leanings changed very much after the age of 28.
Probably the respondents would become more conservative, but stay more liberal relative to their peer group.
I have to wonder at this too (although I'm typically agnostic on the conclusions drawn).
Hasn't the definition of 'intelligence' used fallen completely into disrepute as created according to the self-affirming cognitive bias of the group which designed it?
From my pov this is where peer review is a let-down and I tend to prefer a solid challenge from multiple alternative angles. After all the scientific field remains wide open to infiltration by 'bad scientists' with an axe to grind...
It's an interesting question to ask whether different forms of intelligence are not better suited to different social roles - whatever he may pretend regarding his suitability (and I don't think he should try), I don't think many people think Gordon Brown would make the best teacher or doctor around!
Post a Comment