Sorry if this was posted on here somewhere before, I looked and didn't see it anywhere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm




Tags: intelligence, liberalism

Views: 11

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

PZ Myers didn't take too kindly to this.

Seriously? Show me the error bars on those measurements. Show me the reliability of IQ as a measure of actual, you know, intelligence. Show me that a 6 point IQ difference matters at all in your interactions with other people, even if it were real. And then to claim that these differences are not only heritable, but evolutionarily significant…jebus, people, you can just glance at it and see that it is complete crap.
Oooh hmm, ok. Fair enough. He's a smart guy, I trust his take on things more than I do some random study off Science Daily. :)

Pity! Well, now that I stand corrected, perhaps I'll delete this too.

sorry for wasting people's time, I hadn't seen PZ's commentary. His blog isn't a regular read of mine.
No, don't delete, please!

Someone else might be tempted to post it or discuss it. We should keep this here for reference and/or discussion.
Fair point. Stay it shall!
DON'T DELETE THIS! This article link is a great test for our rationality as atheists! Presenting a temptation to believe something without reliable evidence because of emotional reasoning [i.e. "it sounds good"] is perfect for us. If we are TRULY RATIONAL ATHEISTS, then we rejected religion on the basis that religion is based entirely on emotional reasoning [thus the emotionally charged reactions of theists presented with a challenge to their precious beliefs] and has no basis in logic, science, or fact.
HOWEVER! The atheist that says he/she is IMMUNE to the "emotional reasoning fallacy" is MAKING A FALLACY RIGHT THERE! In fact the second fallacy [the "Not me" fallacy] is [according to psychology] one of the MOST DANGEROUS fallacies for the scientific mind! [The "not me" fallacy is more dangerous than other fallacies, b/c often the "not me" fallacy is the one that leads to more fallacies]
By presenting us with this you are HELPING us to test our true intellectual and critical thinking capacity. So thank you! :D
However much I would like to believe this, I hesitate to do so. As atheists, we should know better than anyone else that "things that sound too good to be true probably are." [theres the obvious example of "life after death" for this]. But also... I would encourage a lot of atheists to read that article you linked to because it is [if anyone else is up to it] a GREAT test in Critical Thinking. As an atheist, it was something I sincerely WANTED to believe, but it forces you to remind yourself that the basis of atheistic thought is that something isn't true just because it sounds good. Thanks for the challenge. I PASSED! ^_^ I printed out that article and scrutinized it, then read Reggie's link and came to the conclusion, that while this is an intriguing idea that deserves further research, it should not be given any merit as "truth" until these results are replicated several times and it is retested - as is the basic tenent of the Scientific Method. ^_^
So what does this make me in relationship with my father? He's a liberal priest, and I'm a conservative(economically) atheist. XD
An interesting pair?
"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess.
I can't understand what 'design' means in this context (does anyone else have this problem?), and 'probably' hardly helps with a definition.

My best guess the meaning is differences in the properties of individuals that have not in the past inferred an evolutionary advantage. They may or may not currently increase an individual's fitness, that part isn't made clear. Being "nocturnal" is mentioned as being evolutionary novel. I don't see a connection to evolution.

Then we get a new term!
evolutionarily novel problems
Fortunately that term isn't mentioned again in the article so it may as well be ignored.

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.

Now we get into the article. He's saying that if something is "evolutionary novel" then intelligent people are more likely to do it. We know that being liberal (defined as caring about people they've never met, think: language & global communication), and staying up late (think: artificial lighting making this possible) are both evolutionary novel. The first thing I do is use this theory to make a prediction, then test it against reality. How about being communist. Enjoying basketball. Waking up before sunrise. Taking an afternoon nap. Wait.... just about everything is evolutionary novel!

Now my patience runs out because I have no clue what's going on and it's not explained and makes no sense. Back to mathematics, things are more logical there...
Salt. Grain of.
Hehe yes, many grains of salt, now apparently, after reading PZ Myers comments. He basically said the statistics were meaningless and the "scientist" in charge is a kook.
Yep. I'm always suspicious of these 'X groups are smarter than Y groups' studies anyhow, as they always seem to support whatever group the researchers belong to.

RSS

Blog Posts

PI = 4

Posted by _Robert_ on September 16, 2014 at 8:53pm 3 Comments

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service