"Liberals and Atheists are smarter and prefer sexual exclusivity"

[Skullduggery]

Here's an article about a study you may find interesting:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

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 suggests two things: Sexual exclusivity is related to higher intelligence, which is in ties with novel ideals like atheism and liberalism.

Liberals are more intelligent and thus more loyal when it comes to sexual monogamy? But...what is "Liberalism" according to this study? If anything, Liberalism is about arbitrariness of sexual activities. I always thought Liberalism doesn't put any restraint on sexual preferences or thoughts and deeds sanctifying the good of the Individual. The idea of Liberalism, at least, does not. I suppose behavioral traits connected to the 'idea' itself are to be found in people who call themselves liberals - but this has to be backed-up with something (funnily enough, I do not think this can be measured, as you except people to be honest and say 'yes, we have been cheating on my wife / homosexual friend' and be honest on an obviously sensitive issue - and it applies also to what the study is trying to brighten implicitly - 'conservatives, who are fools, cheat or are polygamous').  How this study solves the problem of divorce within intelligent couples or atheist couples? Does divorce has anything to do with sexual exclusivity?  Things being 'novel' aren't necessarily advancer than other things - and I really don't think it has anything to do with 'evolution' or 'natural selection'.

Now check this:

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.

The real question is whether caring about strangers is indeed intelligent or not. If there's no definite and decisive link between "liberalism" (as termed here) and 'intelligence' - than we are to assume that the connection is rather loose.

Now, to deepen into the issue of sexual exclusivity and it's lacking relation to IQ and thus Liberalism - we cab exemplify it with the conception of marriage and relationship in religious societies. In many 'conservative' or religious societies - members often stress out the importance of loyalty whilst many of them (like in catholic / Christian relationships and marriages in general) are indeed monogamous. So, regardless of their IQ, they prefer sexual exclusivity.

 Now observe the holy statistics Kanazawa used:

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.

The statistical date presented in the study suggests that they are more likely to be polygamous (when they're more conservative and thus less intelligent) - or, are more likely to cheat on their spouses / to divorce from their spouses. There's a smug sense of counter-intuitive conclusions in this study - since, sexual 'looseness' or 'sexual' acceptance and sexual experiments are probably a phenomenon found more prolifically within liberal circles - since they are more acceptive towards such ideas - and in traditional or conservative societies - it is labeled a crime, a sin - or an objectionable "nonspiritual" phenomenon. Why?

"Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa.  This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers.  "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

So, God (or gods) is sort of a restrainer, a motivator or a great punisher. I believe it is more likely that in conservative societies, regardless of the 'natural tendency' of humans - they will prefer 'sexual' exclusivity, because of this paranoia? On the other hand, atheists and liberals, which are less likely to be paranoid, are more likely to want to "rejoice" life with a rather unraveling lifestyle.

Now, the final paragraph in the article says this:

One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.

This finale seems to dim down the whole study, since marriage and family are two 'entities' which demand loyalty and sexual exclusivity.
The whole study and its conclusions seems rather circumstantial. Am I analyzing this awrong?
I get the feeling the liberal junta are stuck within a realm of their own, believing they're the epitome of 'enlightenment' (intelligent, loyal, advanced, novel). I think a little field research in needed - outside the "scriptoriums" -- as study which will measure the sexual 'loyal exclusivity' of modern westerners (many of them probably define themselves, subjectively, 'liberal').

[Cargést]

Given your examination, the entire thing seems contrived, reactionary (hmm, where have I written those two before?), and, above all, inconsistent.  "Liberals are more likely to be monogamous but are less likely to appreciate social 'constructs' such as 'family' &c" is a self-negating statement.

What is this article actually trying to say?  I reckon it's along the lines of "hurr we r smartR dn u bcuz zceince sez so".

I would classify myself as "ultra-conservative", and have an IQ between 130 and 160, depending on what test you're using.  I'm relatively sure that, in this respect, I'm very similar to the vast majority of people who visit ANUS, the DLA, and associated websites.  When last I checked, 145 > 106, and "ultra-conservative" =/= "very liberal".

Looks like there may be some dissonance between the suggestions in this article and Reality.

[Sammaellofi]

  "Liberals are more likely to be monogamous but are less likely to appreciate social 'constructs' such as 'family' &c" is a self-negating statement.

I don't know.  It reminds me of what Nietzsche said about those who find chastity easy.  It's not that they value chastity, but rather, it was merely in their natures.  "It choose us, not we it.  May it stay as long as it will."   He also says that a people will always find the thing they find hardest to do the most valued trait, meaning someone who can easily keep a family together doesn't see the big deal, while someone who struggles with temptation will mope over how good it must be to be in a  regular family.

That being said, this study does look like bullshit.  There's a lot of logic leaping in it, from what I see.

[Conservationist]

Back to Realityland...

Sexual exclusivity becomes more common the higher up the IQ scale you go.

We can slice up the IQ scale this way:

Under 115: drones

115-119: artisans and lower middle class

120-125: upper half of middle class

125+: varies, usually upper half of middle class or lower middle class with ideological or artistic dispensation

The artisans and lower middle class love to consider themselves intelligent because they're smarter than Joe Bob Pickup Truck, but they fail to notice that they're not as smart as the real productive people out there.

This is better than other articles, but let's look at who they're fighting over:

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.

Also, it made it clear why people choose liberalism and atheism -- it appears open-minded, so raises their public status (rhymes with flatus):

Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.

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

So I wouldn't read too much into this except sexual exclusivity, which we already know:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/03/virginity-heritability.php

I'd also like to know what the 120+ population -- doctors, lawyers, managers, priests, etc -- think, not what the future middle managers of the middle of nowhere think.

[N0thing]

Sexual exclusivity and liberalism to me at least seem at complete odds. Was it not liberals who touted 'free love"?

Not sure why it claims women are not as monogamous, unless they are just interviewing whores.

[Dylar]

We can slice up the IQ scale this way:

Under 115: drones

115-119: artisans and lower middle class

120-125: upper half of middle class

125+: varies, usually upper half of middle class or lower middle class with ideological or artistic dispensation

The artisans and lower middle class love to consider themselves intelligent because they're smarter than Joe Bob Pickup Truck, but they fail to notice that they're not as smart as the real productive people out there.

Not sure if IQ distribution really justifies this.  Statistically, the middle/artisan class of almost any developed society is much, much larger than the portion with IQs between 100 and 119.  I think you significantly overestimate how much raw intellectual capacity it takes to perform even most middle class/artisanal functions in modern societies.  This, of course, is a quibble of detail, rather than of substance, so I don't disagree with your conclusions (including those not quoted).

In any event, I'd argue that, in pre-industrial societies, "sexual exclusivity" confers some pretty significant advantages for the survival of offspring, and hence, a meaningful evolutionary advantage.  Of course, in modern societies, the effect is fundamentally dysgenic, because it means that the stupid outbreed the smart, and modern medicine and social structures insure that their stupid, poorly raised children survive to breed nonetheless.  Boo.

[Nimbostratus]

Back to Realityland...

Sexual exclusivity becomes more common the higher up the IQ scale you go.

We can slice up the IQ scale this way:

Under 115: drones

115-119: artisans and lower middle class

120-125: upper half of middle class

125+: varies, usually upper half of middle class or lower middle class with ideological or artistic dispensation

The artisans and lower middle class love to consider themselves intelligent because they're smarter than Joe Bob Pickup Truck, but they fail to notice that they're not as smart as the real productive people out there.

Not sure if you're implying that "liberals being smarter" is a product of preference for liberalism in the artisans, lower middle class segment.

-115: tardationalists

115-120: liberals

+120: varies.

...

Also, regarding the article, I think that it is pretty silly to classify conservatives as less apt to change, it would be like classifying liberals as less apt to social reproduction through education.