Are liberals smarter than conservatives? Science reports. Conservatives whine.

[philosophie_en_rose]

I can't link to the study directly, as it apparently requires a fee. However, studies conducted by David M Amodio and John T Jost of New York University and Sarah L Master & Cindy M Yee of UCLA indicate that "{l}iberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty." In addition, "{l}iberals are more likely than are conservatives to respond to cues signaling the need to change habitual responses."

From the summary in the Nature Neuroscience Journal - "Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern."

William Saletan at Slate is offended that science makes conservatives look stupid. See http://www.slate.com/id/2173965/?GT1=10436

[supernova]

1. Isn't that the very definition of conservative?

"a more conservative orientation is related to greater persistence in a habitual response pattern, despite signals that this response pattern should change."

I left my church a while ago, chiefly because of the hide-bound repetition in the service. They wouldn't do a different worship style if their lives depended on it. :P

[DarkTirade]

2. In other words, we're adaptable and they aren't.

So when calamity comes, guess who survives... :)

[supernova]

4. Which is why

I've always been comforted that the general march of civilization over the millenia is indeed liberal, not conservative.

[warrior1]

3. Isn't doing the

same thing over and over again and sign of OCD?


And, doing the same thing over again despite it's outcome a sign of insanity?

[Orsino]

5. Hierarchical thinking dominates conservative thought.

That's not necessarily a bad thing (can be an efficient management style, for instance), but the hidebound conservative will excuse almost any crime on the grounds that he is just following orders, that we need to support our president, that trickle-down is the only way prosperity should be shared, that Those Other People don't deserve a voice, etc.

[riverdeep]

6. I think those conclusions can't be drawn

One of the afflictions both liberals and cons and whatever have, we tend to more easily believe things we WANT to be true. We hold them to less rigorous standards. It should be opposite, knowing we have this tendency, we should be holding data that seems to conform to our way of thinking to greater rigor.

1) One study isn't going to do anything. It has to be corroborated elsewhere.
2) Smarter is a loaded term. There are different kinds of intelligence. And smarter people aren't always the most successful at a given endeavor.
3) Even if the conclusion is valid, it would at best be on average. There would still be dumb liberals and smart conservatives.
4) The media love to report these sensationalistic type of studies. Rarely do they follow up to see the scientific community process these studies. That's where the real science is. The Charles Murray book, 'The Bell Curve' posited that White Western Europeans, Ashkenazy Jews and certain Asians were smarter than other groups, notably blacks who were at the bottom. The book got huge press, with IIRC the New Yorker saying Murray was the most dangerous man in America, inferring he had a truth America couldn't handle. Later analysis proved him to be full of it, but the media was nowhere to be found.