"Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with," he said.
Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach -- looking out for the people around you first -- fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. "It's unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers." he said.
If the more intelligent human ancestor saw a
connection or experienced empathy with a "total stranger" then survival of a "total stranger" would give more assurance to survival of the species. Thus living in a hostile world and not having all your eggs in one basket would be perfectly natural.
I also believe, Bailey's admitted conservatism comes shining through in the bolded sentence below, I imagine that if the more intelligent male was more likely tied to sexual exclusivity, any need to show superiority or elitism would have been reduced.
On the other hand a less intelligent male wanting to spread his seed with multiple partners would've felt a strong need to project superiority or elitism, whether it was warranted or not.
It's too bad CNN didn't see fit to interview any professed liberals regarding this study.
"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."
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."
Thanks for the thread, kpete.