Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

[BigBearJohn]

You may have seen this before, but it is worth repeating:

It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs. Liberals usually support such social welfare programs and higher taxes to finance them, and conservatives usually oppose them.

Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel. Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group. They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with. This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures. While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above. Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life. Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

SEE MORE:

[earcandle]

1. I may have rec'd too soon. Government is a sophisticated system of practices that collectively

pays for services for everyone in this country, sight unseen. 


We do that to have everything in working order when we need
it. 

We do that for peace of mind.

We do that for strangers and friends and family alike, because
we are smart enough to realize that to do so increases our
benefit all around.

Liberals are smart.  

[Syrinx]

2. see more where?

You forgot the link. But thanks for the post.

[hfojvt]

3. the title alone deserves an unrec

We need to stop telling ourselves how great we are and start winning elections and winning policy fights against big money.

As for genetic relationship, what the hell is that supposed to mean?

For example, in this country of 300 million, some have estimated that 1/4 of the people in this nation are descended from Robert White and Bridget Allgar (born in the 1560s). In my own database, I have 111,982 of his descendants. I also have 23,911 descendants of Henry Baldwin (born 1529) and 36,830 descendants of John Grant (born 1573) and 24,615 descendants of William Hickok (born 1609) and 35,662 descendants of Thomas Upson (born about 1600).

Point is, depending on how you define it (closer than a 3rd cousin?) probably 60-70% of Americans could be shown to be genetically related to each other with the documentation that is available (if people did the research), and it a more general sense 100% of humans are genetically related to each other.

[LuvNewcastle]

4. It isn't all that novel.

Plenty of ancient cultures, including ancient Semites and ancient Greeks, had societal rules about the treatment of travelers. It is very natural for people to recognize the common humanity in others, however, people are also often swayed by those who say that others who have fewer resources are of less human worth.

[JDPriestly]

5. The guy who wrote that article is, apparently, a bit of a racist with strange

theories. He may be right, and I'm flattered by his reasoning. But then . . . . he may be wrong too.

[BigBearJohn]

6. Whoops. Sorry -- here's the link:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

[chillspike]

7. Kanazawa is a wacko

I wouldn't trust him. A few years ago he wrote feminists, hippies and liberals should be killed.

See for yourself:

http://www.thedailysearch.com/2009/12/evolutionary-psychologist-kill-all.html?m=1

Sorry to break it to you.

[BigBearJohn]

9. Well, another post about his Liberal article is at the top of the greatest page

[chillspike]

10. I think we allshould step back

and research this guy before we start praising him. His articles have been a little "off" for a while.

In one he called for the killing of feminists, hippies and liberals and it wasn't tongue in cheek as some here are sugesting. If it was, you'd think a man of his education would understand the importance of absolute clarity in publishing articles publicaly in his field.

In another he was comparing one race unfavorably physically.

The guy is either not right in the head or needs to agree to a news interview to clarify himself.

[Jim__]

8. Satoshi Kanazawa has been called the great idiot of social science.

And, he's earned that "accolade".