Male? Liberal? Atheist? Monogamous? If you said yes to all of the above, then your IQ is higher.

So I just stumbled upon this CNN article today. It’s title, “Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ” essentially sums up the message found within it, but I want to point out a few finer points that the evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa brought up when he was asked to give his opinion of the findings this study presented (which will be published in the forthcoming March 2010 issue of the journal Social Psychology Quarterly).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html

First, “the IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people.” Hence, it’s not a big difference (about 1/2 to 3/4 of a normal standard deviation of 15 points), so don’t go around trying to eliminate all the conservative, God-fearing, non-sexually-exclusive men out there, because (A) they may “bear their arms” and shoot back and (B) we would have almost no politicians left [which might not actually be so bad after all…]

Second, Kanazawa repeatedly hinted at the notion that the traits of a higher-IQ male being atheist, a liberal, and sexually exclusive may be the beginnings of a slight social evolution.

He, along with George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, felt that atheism “allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion.” Since humanity now has enough secular systems in place to run a civilization, organized religions – A.K.A., one brand of multiple fear-inducing systems of social control – are no longer necessary. We have should evolve beyond them.

Scientology / science fiction, anyone?

“Male sexual exclusivity,” says Elizabeth Landau, the author of the article, “goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.” However, now that the human population has increased and that sociological research has shown the benefits of men remaining around to raise their children, siring children with multiple women is no longer required, or even encouraged (unless you rub elbows with some fundamentalist Mormons in Utah). With the exclusion of “combined families” (those being step-families and such), when would having multiple children by multiple women be advantageous?

Collect all 12, one wife for each month!

“Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach — looking out for the people around you first — fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. ‘It’s unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers.’” Using the specific definition of “liberal” that the researchers used, these liberal-minded people are beginning to concern themselves with issues that are larger than their own, perhaps on a national and/or global level, which, as Kanazawa suggests, may actually oppose “natural evolution,” as there is no physical benefit of assisting random people. Even though the liberal may feel a sense of moral obligation or justification for his or her actions, how exactly would he or she directly benefit from this, outside of the excuse being “for the good of mankind?”

What are you waiting for?

Since, in non-third-world countries, our civilizations have progressed out of what Hobbes’ calls the “state of war” so that life is no longer “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” people can now begin to concern themselves with social welfare on a larger scale, i.e., beyond their own microcosms. We can no longer only fend for ourselves and our own, but must also concern ourselves with the lives and welfare of others.

Yet, “none of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said. ‘More intelligent people don’t have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen.’”

Something to think about.

–Justin Barisich

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>

So I just stumbled upon this CNN article today. It’s title, “Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ” essentially sums up the message found within it, but I want to point out a few finer points that the evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa brought up when he was asked to give his opinion of the findings this study presented (which will be published in the forthcoming March 2010 issue of the journal Social Psychology Quarterly).

First, “the IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning — on the order of 6 to 11 points — and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people.” Hence, it’s not a big difference (about 1/2 to 3/4 of a normal standard deviation of 15 points), so don’t go around trying to eliminate all the conservative, God-fearing, non-sexually-exclusive men out there, because (A) they may “bear their arms” and shoot back and (B) we would have almost no politicians left [which might not actually be so bad after all…]

Second, Kanazawa repeatedly hinted at the notion that the traits of a higher-IQ male being atheist, a liberal, and sexually exclusive may be the beginnings of a slight social evolution.

He, along with George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, felt that atheism “allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion.” Since humanity now has enough secular systems in place to run a civilization, organized religions – A.K.A., one brand of multiple fear-inducing systems of social control – are no longer necessary. We have evolved beyond them.

“Male sexual exclusivity,” says Elizabeth Landau, the author of the article, “goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates. Since women had to spend nine months being pregnant, and additional years caring for very young children, it made sense for them to want a steady mate to provide them resources.” However, now that the human population has increased and that sociological research has shown the benefits of men remaining around to raise their children, siring children with multiple women is no longer required, or even encouraged (unless you rub elbows with some fundamentalist Mormons in Utah). With the exclusion of “recombined families” (those being step-families and such), when would having multiple children by multiple women be advantageous?

“Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach — looking out for the people around you first — fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. ‘It’s unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers.’” Using the specific definition of “liberal” that the researchers used, these liberal-minded people are beginning to concern themselves with issues that are larger than their own, perhaps on a national and/or global level, which, as Kanazawa suggests, may actually oppose “natural evolution,” as there is no physical benefit of assisting random people. Even though the liberal may feel a sense of moral obligation or justification for his or her actions, how exactly would he or she directly benefit from this, outside of the excuse being “for the good of mankind?”

Since, in non-third-world countries, our civilizations have progressed out of what Hobbes’ calls the “state of war” so that life is no longer “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” people can now begin to concern themselves with social welfare on a larger scale, i.e., beyond their own microcosms. We can no longer only fend for ourselves and our own, but must also concern ourselves with the lives and welfare of others.

Yet, “none of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default, Kanazawa said. ‘More intelligent people don’t have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen.’”

Something to think about.

–Justin Barisich

Advertisements

~ by justin.barisich on March 4, 2010.

5 Responses to “Male? Liberal? Atheist? Monogamous? If you said yes to all of the above, then your IQ is higher.”

  1. Interesting perspective. Unfortunately there are many studies like this CNN article out there linking various social/physical traits to intelligence and the like, which are all “insignificant” when you really look at the facts, as you mention.

  2. It is interesting to consider the evolutionary contradiction that arises from this idea. If we assume for a minute that the average IQ of a generation does not change over time (i.e. my children will have the same IQ as I do, and so forth), then one would expect the IQ of the population to decrease over time, because better educated and more intelligent people have the foresight to delay having children during an economic downturn. However, less educated people lack the foresight and have, on average, more children.
    However, studies have shown that the average IQ has increased over time. The question is, where does evolution come into play here?

    -Promethium

  3. I thought that the last sentence of your second paragraph was very funny, especially in light of the recent “tickling” scandal. I don’t know if we would want to do away with all politicians since some have at least one redeeming trait(Blagojevich’s hair is dynamite). All kidding aside though, I agree that these traits do not all run against an evolutionary current. Monogamy should be the preferred courtship norm (Ladies- Beware of any many who argues the evolutionary stance). Also, I do not think that a general concern for the welfare of other humans is seditious, nor that it can be identified as Liberal (In it’s political connotation). I am Moderate-Left politically, being pushed farther left each day by the neo-conservative right movement, but I am also religious. Perhaps I simply defy the trend? I think that an intelligent, educated person should ask questions, and come to their own conclusions. These trends dealing with IQ are effected by multiple things. You could say that more intelligent people have less children, are more likely to be atheist, and susceptible to liberalness, yet it fails to take into account family history (Raw intelligence/religious beliefs/political beliefs), opportunities for quality education (Liberalness/atheism/IQ), and the cost of contraceptives/failure to emphasize sexual caution when discussing the lower economic class and birth-rates.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: