Liberals, Atheists Are More Highly Evolved????

1. 80

   kirstenblogposted 13 years ago

   This one caught my eye the other day as a very interesting read. I thought I would share it here:
   http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … n-evolved/
   
   For a taste without going over for a read here is one paragraph with a good idea for what its all about
   
   
   "As a result of their iconoclastic ancestry, he suggests, people with higher levels of intelligence are more likely to adopt social values and behaviors that are relatively new to human life—liberalism, atheism, staying up late, and (for men) monogamy, for example."

   replyreport
   1. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Oooooh, is that a tin opener I can hear?  Opening a very large can of very wriggly worms?
      
      The trouble with research like this is that it often uses false assumptions and non-watertight definitions to make conclusions based on false premises.
      
      For example, what definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" are being used here?  Presumably the American ones rather than the British ones.  And what about people who consider themselves for the most part "conservative" in the American usage of the word, but also happen to be atheists and not believers?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Guilty as charged, my tin opener is humming loudly
         And here you go being all reasonable, questioning definitions and being logical
         Imagine if everyone acted so reasonable.... a thread like this would just be a friendly and questioning debate to stimulate the mind.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Wonder what his level of intelligence is, and who rated him?  lol

      replyreport
   3. 50

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hi friends
      
      I don't agree with the study; it has obvious faults and needs to be improved.
      
      Moses differed with Pharoah; yet Moses was a founder of new Religion. Jesus differed with the corrupted Jewish priest-hood; and Jesus believed in Religion more than the Jews. Muhammad differed with the infidels of Mecca and their concepts and he brought out a new and trutfhul Word from the Creator- God Allah YHWH. How would the study accommodate Moses, Jesus and Muhammad?
      
      Thanks
      
      I love Moses, Jesus and Muhammad as mentioned in Quran.
      
      Thanks
      
      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

      replyreport
2. 0

   LegendaryHeroposted 13 years ago

   This study's a fail:
   
   "As a result of their iconoclastic ancestry, he suggests, people with higher levels of intelligence are more likely to adopt social values and behaviors that are relatively new to human life—liberalism, atheism, staying up late, and (for men) monogamy, for example."
   
   This man only had a sample of probably several dozen people. There are hundreds of millions of people in the United States. I know plenty of atheist conservatives and plenty of conservatives who stay up late, and you would think that monogamy would be mainly a conservative thing. And he used IQ tests, which are not the most accurate tests of intelligence, to determine the intelligence of these subjects for the study.
   
   He also used teenagers for his study. Brains aren't fully developed until around the age of 25.
   
   
   
   "The study used a picture-based vocabulary test to estimate the IQ of participating teenagers. Seven years later, the same people were asked about their religious and political beliefs."
   
   "But the Add Health method for measuring IQ—via picture vocabulary questions—doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the right kind of intelligence, Ceci said. "They're a better measure of crystallized intelligence, which you acquire through school and culture. That kind of intelligence is not primarily genetic.""

   replyreport
3. 70

   wyanjenposted 13 years ago

   I've seen a couple studies that show this.
   Statistically, from what I've seen in different sources, there is a slightly higher average IQ among liberals and atheists.
   
   Here is another recent article
   
   And yes, everybody chime in, all together now: "cnn is not a credible news source"
   I disagree. But go ahead and find a study that contradicts it before you start claiming cnn is bogus
   
   http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/li … =allsearch

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      CNN is bogus!
      LOL
      
      I studied it intensely and extensively before I gained access to a more honest news source called FOX.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Daniel Carterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Gosh, news to me that FOX is reliable!!
         

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Quick translation:
            
            Honest = same viewpoint as Brenda.

            replyreport
            1. 63

               Daniel Carterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               
               Comprendo mucho.

               replyreport
            2. 0

               Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               You betcha!
               And I knew I'd get clobbered for that.
               
               (wink wink)
               

               replyreport
      2. 61

         Hokeyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You can't be serious!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Sure I can.
            
            I watched CNN for days and months on end for a while.
            I dunno if they've changed their tactics any since I quit watching them, but
            
            I liked Dobbs and Rick Sanchez until I saw how egotistical they are.
            Wolf Blitzer was one of the best, actually.  He was more of a newsman than commentator usually.
            Anderson Cooper wasn't too bad.
            But they all ended up showing their bias.
            
            John Cafferty was the second-worst!  He's just plain crabby and mean!
            
            The worst was Don Lemon.  Really liked him at first, until he openly showed his racism and then allowed the gay agenda to ride on its coattails.
            
            No wonder Glenn Beck went to a better program.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               wyanjenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Blitzer has the most credibility of any newsman out there.
               
               Cafferty is hilarious. He is cynical as hell. I would have thought you would like him

               replyreport
      3. 81

         skyfireposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I thought you'll post something like GodTV.

         replyreport
   2. 66

      TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I must have missed the memo...I grew up with the understanding that CNN was a *very* reliable news source. In all seriousness, has something happened? Why am I hearing all of a sudden that it is not (especially when compared to FOX. FOX? I mean, with a name like that aren't they TELLING YOU they're sneaky?)

      replyreport
      1. 70

         wyanjenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         CNN is the least biased network. I never see them report something that turns out to be hype or bad reporting.
         I do miss Lou Dobbs
         I put that in my post because SO MANY people say the network is unreliable. Go figure.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I've noticed that people are saying it as well. I wonder what they're basing that on.

            replyreport
   3. 50

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Hi friend wyanjen
      
      I have given my reasons above; what is wrong with them. Please give your reasons.
      
      Thanks
      
      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

      replyreport
      1. 70

         wyanjenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I can't really comment.
         
         I don't know what Moses' IQ actually was. Was Muhammad a liberal? I'm not even convinced that Jesus was celibate, let alone monogamous.

         replyreport
         1. 50

            paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            "I'm not even convinced that Jesus was celibate"
            
            Hi friend wyanjen
            
            I am convinced that Jesus was not celibate; he never commanded for celibacy. Jesus must have married; there are people in the world who say they are his off-spring.
            
            Thanks
            
            I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

            replyreport
4. 63

   Daniel Carterposted 13 years ago

   I've encountered about as many atheist liberal bigots as I have religious conservative bigots.
   No rhyme or reason.
   
   There are good, intelligent, rational people on both sides of this. Sounds to me like the guy who did the study had an agenda, and wanted to prove his point about his own superiority (perhaps).
   
   If there are more studies that are credible that can prove the point of the article, then I'll be more willing to accept it. And I do accept that it is a possibility, but from my experience, which has nothing to do with scientific data, it's about sixes.

   replyreport
   1. 50

      paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "There are good, intelligent, rational people on both sides of this. Sounds to me like the guy who did the study had an agenda, and wanted to prove his point about his own superiority (perhaps)."
      
      Hi friend Daniel Carter
      
      I agree with you.
      
      Thanks
      
      I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

      replyreport
5. 66

   TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years ago

   Wow, what a beautiful discussion. Rational questions, reasonable tones of "voice." I love it. I also agree with those who say that this study has some major flaws. The sample needs to be much larger, and as mentioned before, should probably include grown ups, IQ is really unreliable...etc.
   
   That having been said...Since I've been accused of being a liberal, I am perfectly content to believe that I am smarter than others who aren't. (Yes, that IS my tongue in my cheek).

   replyreport
6. 76

   Mikel G Robertsposted 13 years ago

   What about me?
   
   I consider myself a Liberal, but I absolutely believe in the existence of God, which makes me what...mediocre? Half smart half dumb?
   
   What about Conservative-Atheists?
   
   
   
   Who says just being smarter or having a high I.Q. makes one more evolved... What about the evolution of musical talent, or the other arts...

   replyreport
   1. 66

      TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It's interesting you brought that up. I am in the same boat as you, and was wondering about it myself.
      
      I think this goes back to the idea that IQ alone is really a measurement of...nothing...or at least nothing we can define well, anyway. LOL Seriously, there's been a huge movement to identify multiple types of intelligence. So the answer to your question might be that you are of average intelligence in certain areas and above average in others.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         wyanjenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Perfectly stated.

         replyreport
         1. 66

            TheGlassSpiderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks Jen I try! And sometimes the garbled mess in my head comes out on "paper" okay.

            replyreport
7. 61

   TLMinutposted 13 years ago

   Who owns these stations anyway? Who decides what bias gets used? It's obviously not the people on the screen who read the prompts; the reporters may slant their reports in a certain way but who gives them orders to do so or to rewrite?
   
   I've heard it stated (and the staters are foaming at the mouth rabidly!) that Jews own our media; that liberals run our media; that pretty much any 'group' one disagrees with runs American media and that they're all liars.

   replyreport
8. 61

   dfagerposted 13 years ago

   I was taught a theory of Moral and Ethical Development in College Psychology class that would agree with that theory.  It was not in the text books though.  It broadly classified stages of moral and ethical reasoning into 4 categories: choas, or following only hedonistic values, fundamentalism, scepticism then mysticism.
   
   Therefore, religious people can fall into any of the categories but many fall into fundamentalism.

   replyreport