Liberal offers scientific proof that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives

View Comments (13)

• That is a terrible mangling of von Hayek, who noted:

  The higher we climb up the ladder of intelligence, the more we talk with intellectuals, the more likely we are to encounter socialist convictions. Initial surprise at finding that intelligent people tend to be socialist diminishes when one realizes that, of course, intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence.
  The socialist mind can conceive of order only as the result of deliberate arrangement. But evolution is a process of trial-and-error which leads us ahead precisely in bringing about much that we could not intend or foresee.
  Evolving moral rules and tradition, rather than intelligence and calculating reason, lifted men above the savages.

  There is even less reason for Kanazawa to to mangle this understanding when you consider that Bruce Charlton, who is a British evolutionary psychiatrist Kanazawa must know, put the finishing touches on Hayek's observation:
  An increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense. Since evolved common sense usually produces the right answers in the social domain, this implies that, when it comes to solving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likely than those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and behave maladaptively. This random silliness of the most intelligent people may be amplified to generate systematic wrongness when intellectuals are also advertising their own high intelligence in the context of a modern IQ meritocracy. The stratified context of communicating almost exclusively with others of similar intelligence generates opinions and behaviours among the highest IQ people which are not just lacking in common sense but also perverse.
  Yet, whatever else, to be a clever silly is a somewhat tragic state; because it entails being.... unable to engage directly and spontaneously with what most humans have traditionally regarded as social reality; disbarred from the common experience of humankind and instead cut-adrift on the surface of a glittering but shallow ocean of novelties: none of which can ever truly convince or satisfy. It is to be alienated from the world; and to find no stable meaning of life that is solidly underpinned by emotional conviction. Little wonder, perhaps, that clever sillies choose sub-replacement reproduction.

  Kanazawa reminds of the old axiom that when a mind is not in order, the more knowledge he has the less he will understand.

• First off... There is Gardner's "Multiple Intelligences" model (which I agree with). So the smarty pants from London who used the generic catch-all label of 'intelligence' is not on point.

  Note he did not say liberals were more successful, more popular, better sexed, more caring, more creative, more joyful etc. Just somehow more intelligent. This is due to their liking unnatural preferences?

  Like how a plant will naturally move and reach and bend to seek out the sun and to grow mighty and large from naturally extending to catch the rain. Only when it is forced to unnaturally make do with less light and water will it live as a mere shadow of itself in size and health, if it lives at all.

  So too with man. Man seeks freedom, health, opportunity, expansion, growth. Some men I guess can cope with the unnatural way of being overtaxed, having the government invade their lives and trample their liberties, being forced to act to the State's values and not to their own. Men can then adapt and live unnaturally as crippled and limited shells of themselves, if they live at all. That state of existence does not seem to smart to me. If anything it shows a willingness for submission more then it does any manner of true intelligence.

  More on point: There is intelligence and then there is wisdom. As of late I have not seen too much Wisdom from liberals nor conservatives.

  The liberals still outnumber the conservatives about 4:1 on that area (lack of Wisdom) however. It must be because they are taking all their time and resources to be so intelligence and accept an unnatural way of living and the valid one.

  If you are sick you can get healthy and cure yourself via right action (as one 's naturally inclined to do). That is natural. Or you can remain with the illness and live in an unnatural, diminished state. Which choice is the smarter of the two?

  So much for the 'unnatural preference' being a mark of intelligence.

• I like that Kanazawa’s theory was brought up, I think that more time should’ve been spent on, or at least reiterated, that Kanazawa does not believe that intelligence equals being smart. Kanazawa’s definition of intelligence is having the ability to think and reason. He says that being smart means having common sense, which comes naturally or is “evolutionarily familiar” to human beings and because of this liberals and atheist, who reject what comes naturally, would intern reject common sense—making conservatives smarter than liberals.

• He's confusing intelligence with hypocracy and smugness.

• Unnatural behavior? Okay... I'll go along.

  I guess that's why liberals stick their pee-pees where their pals go poo-poo.

  NOW THAT'S UNNATURAL!

• I saw this guy on red eye. His definition of "intellectual" is different than his definition of smart. He says that conservatives are actually smarter than liberals who are just intellectual because they sit around talking about theories and philosophies. Conservatives are smarter because they don't sit around talking about it, we do it and succeed at it because our theories actually work.

  • What? I don't think this guy knows where he stands.

    • i can see what he is saying, im not sure why you are saying that

      liberals are more often higher schooled, so they are "intellectual"
      conservatives are more often self learned or learned from actual experience, which he would called "smarter"

      now, there is no difference in definition between "smart" and "intelligent" but i have an easy time believe that if there were an more specific way to explain it, liberals would be more proxy learned (by far) and conservatives more first hand.

  • yea, i was gonna mention this.

• He is basing this on?

  Where is the evidence? The well done and metered scientific studies? What is this "study" that he did? Where can one find it?

  Idiot.

  So UNNATURAL behavior is the hallmark of an intelligent person?

  So basically a pedophile is more intelligent than a person who is not a pedophile?

  Did he really say that liberals are unnatural? And... is this a good thing?

• WTF? The poor guy got into a really bad batch of Kool Aid and then forgot to bring his tin foil hat to the studio.

• He incorrectly defines what it is to be conservative and then declares his definition to be proof that they are less intelligent.

  There's nothing "novel" about liberalism. Stealing money and giving it to your supporters to expand your own power base is the 2nd oldest activity in the history of Man.

  • Agreed, he seems to corellate conservatism with selfishness and apathy to others, and liberalism with carring about others. In real world experience this is not the case as extreme conservatism leads to individual liberty and extreme liberalism leads to governmental tyranny.

    He then states that liberalism is a novelty, and therefore makes a humoungous jump in logic to say that novelty leads to greater intelligence?

    Oh I know what it is, he's presenting this idea to other liberal professors who love to hear they are smarter than conservative neanderthals and will not rigorously question his theory. In addition it's not like an *idea* can be tested in the real world and judged for its merits. Ah, academia.