Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
John Kulig wrote: > Interesting. Even in the US the terms are undergoing transformations. The > current Obama administration (like Clinton's) is nowhere near "liberal" > compared to Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. There's a very good reason that Obama's no FDR. He doesn't have anything like FDR's control of congress. Read: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/obamas-no-fdr-nor-does-he-have-fdrs.html Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1268 or send a blank email to leave-1268-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
Allen Esterson wrote: > Oh, dear, the perils of translating from the UK to the US! Do not > conflate the American use of the term "liberal" with what is meant in > Britain by "Liberal". Although the history of UK's Liberal Democrats has some relevance here, the problem is translating from the actual meaning of the word "liberal" to the way the term is pejoratively flung around in the US. As I have said before on this list, "liberals" are not on the "left" (as though the left-right metaphor, dating from the days immediately following the French Revolution is still terribly informative). Liberals are in the center, as the LibDems are in the UK. (In Canada, legendary Liberal leader Pierre Trudeau once famously defined his party as representing "the radical center, that is to say, the extreme middle"). Social Democrats (historically identified with labor, though not so much anymore) are on the left. The reason "liberal" seems like the "left" in the US, is that the US doesn't have any "left" to speak of (except perhaps Bernie Sanders, independent senator from Vermont, and former mayor of the "People's Republic of Burlington"). It is worth noting that while there are lots of (supposedly "leftist") Democrats in the US who cannot bring themselves to support a "public option" on health care, there is hardly a (supposedly "right") Conservative in all of Western Europe or Canada who would dare to publicly suggest turning the entire health care system over to the private insurance companies. To do so would put their political career at considerable risk. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1267 or send a blank email to leave-1267-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
Interesting. Even in the US the terms are undergoing transformations. The current Obama administration (like Clinton's) is nowhere near "liberal" compared to Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. Even more bizarre is that when the Clintons pushed for single-payer health care system in the 1990s, many conservatives were ok with a public-option instead - the same public-option they now completely reject. Given these inconsistencies in the US, I have two off-the-top-of the head political theories (1) the Republicans are in a "I am opposed to anything the Democrats are CURRENTLY in favor of". This would explain the tea-baggers odd sentiment "Keep big government's hands off my Medicare!", since Medicare and Medicaid and social security were vehemently opposed by the republicans but now quietly accepted by all Americans. And Americans accept food labels and seat belts and higher CAFE car standards as good things, even though conservatives railed against them in the past (thank Ralph Nadar btw). My second theory is more "freudian" and can subsume the first. (2) What is really driving political bitterness in the US is a vestige of the 1960s "cultural wars" in which marijuana smoking, feminism, Roe-Wade, and sexual permissiveness have been linked to the left. I mean, Stupak's quibbling abortion funding language threatens to derail the entire health-care overhaul, modest as it is. My memory from the 60s is that older people were horrified by the amorality of the hippies, reaction-formation style. This would explain why conservatives are quick to claim religion as their issue, as well as their hold on the lower/middle class south were millions would benefit from policies pitched to the working class. There used to be many union-supporting, labor-centered politicians from the south (Sam Nunn, Lyndon Johnson) but they are all gone now. And of course there is still racism, which is still lingering beneath the surface. OK just Saturday morning rambling, not really teaching related and not genuine Freudian either ... but thanks Allen Esterson for the information .. == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame - A. Einstein - Original Message - From: "Allen Esterson" To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 5:49:26 AM Subject: Re:[tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent From "Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?", by John Cloud in "Time", cited by Stephen Black: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html "These aren't entirely new findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids with higher intelligence scores were more likely to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after the researchers controlled for socioeconomics." Oh, dear, the perils of translating from the UK to the US! Do not conflate the American use of the term "liberal" with what is meant in Britain by "Liberal". First the name Liberal Democrats comes from a 1987 merger of the traditional Liberal Party (always traditionally a strong supporter of capitalist free enterprise, with safeguards) with the Social Democratic Party. The Social Democratic Party was an offshoot of the Labour Party set up by four prominent Labour Party members from the Right of the Party. Second, the Liberal Democrats are regarded as a more middle-of-the-road Party than the left-of-centre Labour Party (at least the traditional part of the Labour Party). Second, while the leadership tends to be responsible in its formulation of policies in the sense of maintaining policies that recognize the realities of what can be achieved by any Government in the specific circumstances of its election to power, the Liberal Democrats have the advantage over the two main parties in that they have no hope of achieving power in the immediate future, so their policies can be more "idealistic" without their having to be put to the test of actually having to be carried out. And third, there is a vocal wing of the Liberal Democrats that advocates all manner of mostly unrealistic idealistic policies that would be virtually impossible to accomplish, and which wouldn't help the Party if they were to be accepted by the leadership because they don't have any great support among the wider population. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org -- From: Paul Brandon Su
Re:[tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
From "Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?", by John Cloud in "Time", cited by Stephen Black: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html "These aren't entirely new findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids with higher intelligence scores were more likely to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after the researchers controlled for socioeconomics." Oh, dear, the perils of translating from the UK to the US! Do not conflate the American use of the term "liberal" with what is meant in Britain by "Liberal". First the name Liberal Democrats comes from a 1987 merger of the traditional Liberal Party (always traditionally a strong supporter of capitalist free enterprise, with safeguards) with the Social Democratic Party. The Social Democratic Party was an offshoot of the Labour Party set up by four prominent Labour Party members from the Right of the Party. Second, the Liberal Democrats are regarded as a more middle-of-the-road Party than the left-of-centre Labour Party (at least the traditional part of the Labour Party). Second, while the leadership tends to be responsible in its formulation of policies in the sense of maintaining policies that recognize the realities of what can be achieved by any Government in the specific circumstances of its election to power, the Liberal Democrats have the advantage over the two main parties in that they have no hope of achieving power in the immediate future, so their policies can be more "idealistic" without their having to be put to the test of actually having to be carried out. And third, there is a vocal wing of the Liberal Democrats that advocates all manner of mostly unrealistic idealistic policies that would be virtually impossible to accomplish, and which wouldn't help the Party if they were to be accepted by the leadership because they don't have any great support among the wider population. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org -- From: Paul Brandon Subject:Re: Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:59:04 -0600 On the other hand, self styled conservatives like Bush and Cheney worked very hard at avoiding actual combat. May be more a style of verbal aggression. On Mar 8, 2010, at 7:38 PM, wrote: As a follow-up to my post drawing attention to this paper, I've noticed that _Time_ magazine also has an essay on it, probably published immediately after they spotted my note on TIPS. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html The author, John Cloud, refers to a study which found that physically stronger men tended toward a belief in the use of force to solve personal and international conflicts. Identifying this with a conservative philosophy (a bit forced, perhaps), Cloud concludes his piece with this bit of advice: "If you are a liberal who believes you're smarter than conservatives, you probably shouldn't bring that up around them. You might not like them when they're angry." Which suggests that it might not have been a good idea for Ed Pollack to have, as he said, send the article around to his right wing friends, even if he did get a lot of pleasure out of it. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato paul.bran...@mnsu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1263 or send a blank email to leave-1263-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
On the other hand, self styled conservatives like Bush and Cheney worked very hard at avoiding actual combat. May be more a style of verbal aggression. On Mar 8, 2010, at 7:38 PM, wrote: > As a follow-up to my post drawing attention to this paper, I've > noticed that _Time_ magazine also has an essay on it, probably > published immediately after they spotted my note on TIPS. > > http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html > > The author, John Cloud, refers to a study which found that > physically stronger men tended toward a belief in the use of force > to solve personal and international conflicts. Identifying this > with a conservative philosophy (a bit forced, perhaps), Cloud > concludes his piece with this bit of advice: > > "If you are a liberal who believes you're smarter than > conservatives, you probably shouldn't bring that up around them. > You might not like them when they're angry." > > Which suggests that it might not have been a good idea for Ed > Pollack to have, as he said, send the article around to his right > wing friends, even if he did get a lot of pleasure out of it. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato paul.bran...@mnsu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1257 or send a blank email to leave-1257-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
Ed Oh, I get in conservatives' face too. I finally read more about the work that inspired the posts, and data is data, but I really think they over-reached on the interpretation ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame - A. Einstein - Original Message - From: "Edward Pollak" To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 11:03:04 AM Subject: Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent Oustanding post, John. I hereby nominate you for Tipster of the week... although I have gotten a lot of pleasure sending this article to my right wing friends. Ed Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Department of Psychology West Chester University of Pennsylvania Husband, father, grandfather, biopsychologist, & bluegrass fiddler.. in approximate order of importance. Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent John Kulig Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:58:05 -0800 Well it's an intriguing hypothesis, and though I usually have knee-jerk 'yes' responses to anything evolutionary, could it simply be that more intelligent people think more, therefore more likely to have thoughts out of the main-stream? Also, it's quite a stretch to associate conservative with religion over even a short time and space. Religion & liberalism are often tied together - in Australia, for instance, where the % of religious people is very low, but those who are religious are into social justice. Know a visitor from Australia who was puzzled by the religion-conservative link in the US. Perhaps being "religious" there is a "novel idea". There is so much diversity under the terms "conservative" and "religious" as to make the claims superficial. Just a few examples: What passes for conservative today in the US (very ideological) bears little resemblance to what "conservative" was to the founder of modern conservatism (Edmund Burke) whose "conservatism" took the form of criticizing mob rule after the French Revolution (as well as its ideological thinking) (no doubt HE was intelligent and was simply going against the zeitgeist?). The same can be said of religion, to lump the tremendous variety, from orthodox liturgical practices to the highly individualistic practices of some christian churches, not to mention the interesting practice of lumping wild sex into religious practices (Rasputin tied his spiritual/ Russian Orthodox beliefs to some great parties I hear). Religiously conservative black churches in the US are sometimes hot beds of social liberal activism. And Catholic 'liberation theology' is radically left and socialistic. What is the common thread between all these things? Having a solid operational definition of these terms would help (there are some, not sure they are universally accepted). I suspect it is easier operationalizing spirituality that religiosity and atheism. No doubt we can empirically get "average" data for these terms, but statisticians sometimes remind us that averages can be applied inappropriately, as when we correctly say that the average American has one testicle and one ovary :-) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu . To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=937 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-937-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=940 or send a blank email to leave-940-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
Oustanding post, John. I hereby nominate you for Tipster of the week... although I have gotten a lot of pleasure sending this article to my right wing friends. Ed Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Department of Psychology West Chester University of Pennsylvania Husband, father, grandfather, biopsychologist, & bluegrass fiddler.. in approximate order of importance. Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent John Kulig Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:58:05 -0800 Well it's an intriguing hypothesis, and though I usually have knee-jerk 'yes' responses to anything evolutionary, could it simply be that more intelligent people think more, therefore more likely to have thoughts out of the main-stream? Also, it's quite a stretch to associate conservative with religion over even a short time and space. Religion & liberalism are often tied together - in Australia, for instance, where the % of religious people is very low, but those who are religious are into social justice. Know a visitor from Australia who was puzzled by the religion-conservative link in the US. Perhaps being "religious" there is a "novel idea". There is so much diversity under the terms "conservative" and "religious" as to make the claims superficial. Just a few examples: What passes for conservative today in the US (very ideological) bears little resemblance to what "conservative" was to the founder of modern conservatism (Edmund Burke) whose "conservatism" took the form of criticizing mob rule after the French Revolution (as well as its ideological thinking) (no doubt HE was intelligent and was simply going against the zeitgeist?). The same can be said of religion, to lump the tremendous variety, from orthodox liturgical practices to the highly individualistic practices of some christian churches, not to mention the interesting practice of lumping wild sex into religious practices (Rasputin tied his spiritual/ Russian Orthodox beliefs to some great parties I hear). Religiously conservative black churches in the US are sometimes hot beds of social liberal activism. And Catholic 'liberation theology' is radically left and socialistic. What is the common thread between all these things? Having a solid operational definition of these terms would help (there are some, not sure they are universally accepted). I suspect it is easier operationalizing spirituality that religiosity and atheism. No doubt we can empirically get "average" data for these terms, but statisticians sometimes remind us that averages can be applied inappropriately, as when we correctly say that the average American has one testicle and one ovary :-) --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=937 or send a blank email to leave-937-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
?On 26 February John Kulig wrote: >What passes for conservative today in the US (very >ideological) bears little resemblance to what "conservative" >was to the founder of modern conservatism (Edmund Burke)… I think John makes a good point here. Incidentally, although associated with his articulation of fundamental principles of Conservativism, Burke was a Whig (which transmuted into the Liberal Party some time later) not a Tory. >… whose "conservatism" took the form of criticizing mob rule >after the French >Revolution (as well as its ideological thinking) >(no doubt >HE was intelligent and was simply going against the zeitgeist?) Burke supported the *American* revolutionaries' case against the British government, if not the revolution itself. His opposition to the French Revolution (vehemently in opposition to the welcome it was given by his leading Whig friend and colleague Charles Fox) was certainly not a case of "going against the zeitgeist", it was a position inherent to his Conservative political principles. Remarkably, in his *Reflections on the Revolution in France* written within a year of the outbreak of the Revolution, he predicted the rise of a strong man out of the army who would become "master" of the Republic, but didn't live to see it happen in the person of Napoleon. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org ------------------------- --- Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent John Kulig Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:58:05 -0800 Well it's an intriguing hypothesis, and though I usually have knee-jerk 'yes' responses to anything evolutionary, could it simply be that more intelligent people think more, therefore more likely to have thoughts out of the main-stream? Also, it's quite a stretch to associate conservative with religion over even a short time and space. Religion & liberalism are often tied together - in Australia, for instance, where the % of religious people is very low, but those who are religious are into social justice. Know a visitor from Australia who was puzzled by the religion-conservative link in the US. Perhaps being "religious" there is a "novel idea". There is so much diversity under the terms "conservative" and "religious" as to make the claims superficial. Just a few examples: What passes for conservative today in the US (very ideological) bears little resemblance to what "conservative" was to the founder of modern conservatism (Edmund Burke) whose "conservatism" took the form of criticizing mob rule after the French Revolution (as well as its ideological thinking) (no doubt HE was intelligent and was simply going against the zeitgeist?). The same can be said of religion, to lump the tremendous variety, from orthodox liturgical practices to the highly individualistic practices of some christian churches, not to mention the interesting practice of lumping wild sex into religious practices (Rasputin tied his spiritual/ Russian Orthodox beliefs to some great parties I hear). Religiously conservative black churches in the US are sometimes hot beds of social liberal activism. And Catholic 'liberation theology' is radically left and socialistic. What is the common thread between all these things? Having a solid operational definition of these terms would help (there are some, not sure they are universally accepted). I suspect it is easier operationalizing spirituality that religiosity and atheism. No doubt we can empirically get "average" data for these terms, but statisticians sometimes remind us that averages can be applied inappropriately, as when we correctly say that the average American has one testicle and one ovary :-) == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=923 or send a blank email to leave-923-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
Well it's an intriguing hypothesis, and though I usually have knee-jerk 'yes' responses to anything evolutionary, could it simply be that more intelligent people think more, therefore more likely to have thoughts out of the main-stream? Also, it's quite a stretch to associate conservative with religion over even a short time and space. Religion & liberalism are often tied together - in Australia, for instance, where the % of religious people is very low, but those who are religious are into social justice. Know a visitor from Australia who was puzzled by the religion-conservative link in the US. Perhaps being "religious" there is a "novel idea". There is so much diversity under the terms "conservative" and "religious" as to make the claims superficial. Just a few examples: What passes for conservative today in the US (very ideological) bears little resemblance to what "conservative" was to the founder of modern conservatism (Edmund Burke) whose "conservatism" took the form of criticizing mob rule after the French Revolution (as well as its ideological thinking) (no doubt HE was intelligent and was simply going against the zeitgeist?). The same can be said of religion, to lump the tremendous variety, from orthodox liturgical practices to the highly individualistic practices of some christian churches, not to mention the interesting practice of lumping wild sex into religious practices (Rasputin tied his spiritual/ Russian Orthodox beliefs to some great parties I hear). Religiously conservative black churches in the US are sometimes hot beds of social liberal activism. And Catholic 'liberation theology' is radically left and socialistic. What is the common thread between all these things? Having a solid operational definition of these terms would help (there are some, not sure they are universally accepted). I suspect it is easier operationalizing spirituality that religiosity and atheism. No doubt we can empirically get "average" data for these terms, but statisticians sometimes remind us that averages can be applied inappropriately, as when we correctly say that the average American has one testicle and one ovary :-) == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame - A. Einstein - Original Message - From: sbl...@ubishops.ca To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 1:28:01 PM Subject: Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent On 26 Feb 2010 at 12:32, Rick Froman wrote: > Next study...Is there a negative correlation between critical thinking and > intelligence or do people just > have great difficulty (no doubt due to some evolutionary mechanism) thinking > critically about things they > are predisposed to agree with? Hey, don't blame the messenger. I just report the news. Naturally, those who are liberal, atheist, and monogamous might find some joy in it. But the main point seems to be empirical. What is it about the reported finding, as opposed to its interpretation, which should invite challenge through critical thinking? Anyway, even-(Stephen) handedness being my middle name, I would have reported the results even had they turned against those misguided liberal-atheist-monogamists. The findings would be provocative either way. Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=909 or send a blank email to leave-909-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=914 or send a blank email to leave-914-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
Stephen: This was not an attack on you. Did you see yourself in my comment? Did you take offense by dint of your membership in the intelligentsia? I was actually referring to the authors and not to you who just passed it along to provoke comment. There is almost never anything of interest to argue about in an actual finding (hey, if r(255)=.753, I'm not going to argue that the p is not less than .001). It is always about the interpretation. It is always the possible extraneous variables and third factors. That is where the complications come in that I want my students to consider; the more third factors they can imagine, the better. I have to agree with Nancy Melucci, "The more the conclusions appeal to us, the closer we should look." I will often use correlational findings I believe my students will interpret to be supportive of their preferred causal link in order to get them to think critically in a way that is counter to their bias. This article could provide good practice for the liberal-atheist-monogamists among us to test their chops. Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Professor of Psychology Box 3055 John Brown University 2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761 rfro...@jbu.edu (479)524-7295 http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman -Original Message- From: sbl...@ubishops.ca [mailto:sbl...@ubishops.ca] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 12:28 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent On 26 Feb 2010 at 12:32, Rick Froman wrote: > Next study...Is there a negative correlation between critical thinking and > intelligence or do people just > have great difficulty (no doubt due to some evolutionary mechanism) thinking > critically about things they > are predisposed to agree with? Hey, don't blame the messenger. I just report the news. Naturally, those who are liberal, atheist, and monogamous might find some joy in it. But the main point seems to be empirical. What is it about the reported finding, as opposed to its interpretation, which should invite challenge through critical thinking? Anyway, even-(Stephen) handedness being my middle name, I would have reported the results even had they turned against those misguided liberal-atheist-monogamists. The findings would be provocative either way. Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=909 or send a blank email to leave-909-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=910 or send a blank email to leave-910-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
On 26 Feb 2010 at 12:32, Rick Froman wrote: > Next study...Is there a negative correlation between critical thinking and > intelligence or do people just > have great difficulty (no doubt due to some evolutionary mechanism) thinking > critically about things they > are predisposed to agree with? Hey, don't blame the messenger. I just report the news. Naturally, those who are liberal, atheist, and monogamous might find some joy in it. But the main point seems to be empirical. What is it about the reported finding, as opposed to its interpretation, which should invite challenge through critical thinking? Anyway, even-(Stephen) handedness being my middle name, I would have reported the results even had they turned against those misguided liberal-atheist-monogamists. The findings would be provocative either way. Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=909 or send a blank email to leave-909-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
Yes, really. A red flag should be raised and we should ALL consider the possibility that this type of study would suffer from the same type of taint that - oh, let's say, a highly praised study of the alleged effectiveness of abstinence education would raise. Or the ones that claim to confirm that religious folk are more likely to give to charity etc. And please stay away from the anecdotes about sexual exclusivity. As with the abstinence studies, people can tell you all kinds of stuff that isn't true. And for every South Carolina governor there's a John Edwards, a John Kennedy etc. I think the problem is that liberal or conservative, male or female, sexual exclusivity is a fairly challenging goal from an evolutionary standpoint. This type of study requires even MORE scrutiny than we'd give the ones about abstinence, religiosity, etc. The more the conclusions appeal to us, the closer we should look. Nancy Melucci Long Beach City College -Original Message- From: Rick Froman To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Sent: Fri, Feb 26, 2010 9:32 am Subject: RE: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent Next study...Is there a negative correlation between critical thinking and ntelligence or do people just have great difficulty (no doubt due to some volutionary mechanism) thinking critically about things they are predisposed to gree with? Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair ivision of Humanities and Social Sciences Box 3055 7295 fro...@jbu.edu ttp://tinyurl.com/DrFroman Proverbs 14:15 "A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought o his steps." Original Message- rom: sbl...@ubishops.ca [mailto:sbl...@ubishops.ca] ent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:45 AM o: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) ubject: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent ...is the provocative title of a new study, namely Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why Liberals and Atheists Are More ntelligent. _Social Psychology Quarterly_, first published on ebruary 16 as doi:10.1177/0190272510361602 Abstract ( http://spq.sagepub.com/pap.dtl ) he origin of values and preferences is an unresolved heoretical question in behavioral and social sciences. The avanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, derived from the Savanna rinciple and a theory of the evolution of general intelligence, uggests that more intelligent individuals may be more likely to cquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values and references (such as liberalism and atheism and, for men, exual exclusivity) than less intelligent individuals, but that eneral intelligence may have no effect on the acquisition and spousal of evolutionarily familiar values (for children, marriage, amily, and friends). The analyses of the National Longitudinal tudy of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social urveys (Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence ignificantly increases adult liberalism, atheism, and men´s (but ot women´s) value on sexual exclusivity. News item on it here: ttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.h m or http://tinyurl.com/y9racoq It should not escape your notice that the theory and results imply hat state governors who hike the Appalachian trail and less- han-faithful golfers may not be the sharpest knifes in the rawer. But you already knew that. >From the news report, it seems that the author favours the nterpretation of this correlation that high IQ causes the political, eligious, and sexual preferences. Of course, it may be that volution (i.e. genetics) is responsible for all of them. Stephen - tephen L. Black, Ph.D. rofessor of Psychology, Emeritus ishop's University -mail: sblack at ubishops.ca 600 College St. herbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 anada -- --- ou are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu. o unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=902 r send a blank email to leave-902-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- ou are currently subscribed to tips as: drna...@aol.com. o unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b878&n=T&l=tips&o=905 r send a blank email to leave-905-12993.aba36cc3760e0b1c6a655f019a68b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=908 or send a blank email to leave-908-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
Paul Brandon wrote: Of course, Liberals and Atheists are more likely to write the tests and develop the theories. And "state governors who hike the Appalachian trail and less-than- faithful golfers" seem to be making a disproportionate contribution to the gene pool. No genes were reproduced during the above events (to our knowledge). :-) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo Office: 416-736-2100 ext. 66164 Fax: 416-736-5814 = --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=906 or send a blank email to leave-906-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
Next study...Is there a negative correlation between critical thinking and intelligence or do people just have great difficulty (no doubt due to some evolutionary mechanism) thinking critically about things they are predisposed to agree with? Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Box 3055 x7295 rfro...@jbu.edu http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman Proverbs 14:15 "A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps." -Original Message- From: sbl...@ubishops.ca [mailto:sbl...@ubishops.ca] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:45 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent ...is the provocative title of a new study, namely Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent. _Social Psychology Quarterly_, first published on February 16 as doi:10.1177/0190272510361602 Abstract ( http://spq.sagepub.com/pap.dtl ) The origin of values and preferences is an unresolved theoretical question in behavioral and social sciences. The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, derived from the Savanna Principle and a theory of the evolution of general intelligence, suggests that more intelligent individuals may be more likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values and preferences (such as liberalism and atheism and, for men, sexual exclusivity) than less intelligent individuals, but that general intelligence may have no effect on the acquisition and espousal of evolutionarily familiar values (for children, marriage, family, and friends). The analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys (Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence significantly increases adult liberalism, atheism, and men´s (but not women´s) value on sexual exclusivity. News item on it here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.h tm or http://tinyurl.com/y9racoq It should not escape your notice that the theory and results imply that state governors who hike the Appalachian trail and less- than-faithful golfers may not be the sharpest knifes in the drawer. But you already knew that. >From the news report, it seems that the author favours the interpretation of this correlation that high IQ causes the political, religious, and sexual preferences. Of course, it may be that evolution (i.e. genetics) is responsible for all of them. Stephen - Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada --- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: rfro...@jbu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5f8a&n=T&l=tips&o=902 or send a blank email to leave-902-13039.37a56d458b5e856d05bcfb3322db5...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=905 or send a blank email to leave-905-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent
Of course, Liberals and Atheists are more likely to write the tests and develop the theories. And "state governors who hike the Appalachian trail and less-than- faithful golfers" seem to be making a disproportionate contribution to the gene pool. On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:45 AM, wrote: > ...is the provocative title of a new study, namely > > Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why Liberals and Atheists Are More > Intelligent. _Social Psychology Quarterly_, first published on > February 16 as doi:10.1177/0190272510361602 > > Abstract ( http://spq.sagepub.com/pap.dtl ) > > The origin of values and preferences is an unresolved > theoretical question in behavioral and social sciences. The > Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, derived from the Savanna > Principle and a theory of the evolution of general intelligence, > suggests that more intelligent individuals may be more likely to > acquire and espouse evolutionarily novel values and > preferences (such as liberalism and atheism and, for men, > sexual exclusivity) than less intelligent individuals, but that > general intelligence may have no effect on the acquisition and > espousal of evolutionarily familiar values (for children, marriage, > family, and friends). The analyses of the National Longitudinal > Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social > Surveys (Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence > significantly increases adult liberalism, atheism, and men´s (but > not women´s) value on sexual exclusivity. > > News item on it here: > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.h > tm or http://tinyurl.com/y9racoq > > It should not escape your notice that the theory and results imply > that state governors who hike the Appalachian trail and less- > than-faithful golfers may not be the sharpest knifes in the > drawer. But you already knew that. > > From the news report, it seems that the author favours the > interpretation of this correlation that high IQ causes the political, > religious, and sexual preferences. Of course, it may be that > evolution (i.e. genetics) is responsible for all of them. > > Stephen > > - > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology, Emeritus > Bishop's University > e-mail: sblack at ubishops.ca > 2600 College St. > Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 > Canada > -- > - > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: paul.bran...@mnsu.edu. > To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u? > id=13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a64900b&n=T&l=tips&o=902 > or send a blank email to > leave-902-13438.3b5166ef147b143fedd04b1c4a649...@fsulist.frostburg.edu Paul Brandon 10 Crown Hill Lane Mankato, MN 56001 pkbra...@hickorytech.net --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=903 or send a blank email to leave-903-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
