“This is somewhat of an unfair comparison as of course conspiracy theories are very popular in the leftist media and academia, only they don't get labelled as such (rather, it is Accepted Science).”
Ideologically based conspiracy theories reflect higher IQ than completely made up nonsense like Hugo Chavez voting machines or vaccine shedding. The animating forces in American conservatism are really dumb and getting dumber at a shockingly fast rate.
"Ideologically based conspiracy theories reflect higher IQ than completely made up nonsense like Hugo Chavez voting machines or vaccine shedding" Why? Believing in white privilege, critical race theory, that there is a mystical force out there called "white supremacy" that makes blacks commit crime and have low IQ, that evolution is made up thing used to make other races look bad, etc. This somehow makes leftists smart just because it's backed by some leftist scientists?
Most people, including most smart people, are highly irrational when it comes to their ideology. So believing irrational things which confirm your ideology (like "white supremacy") is not a strong signal of low intelligence.
In contrast, irrational beliefs without any ideological valence are less common among smart people. Smart people are usually able to sniff out stupid irrational beliefs when they do not confirm their own ideological biases.
Yeah, some conspiracy theories have the marks of a higher IQ, others lower IQ. It is not necessarily about probability. The higher-IQ conspiracy theories show evidence that a lot of higher-order thought affected them. It used to be: "Whites hate Blacks." Now it is: "Whites have an unconscious bias against People of Color that is unknowingly passed on through their traditions and institutions, even as they sincerely believe themselves to be non-racist. Asians are elevated to serve as a Model Minority at the expense of other PoC." The unconsciousness of the conspirators really is novel among conspiracy theories.
"Yeah, some conspiracy theories have the marks of a higher IQ, others lower IQ". Again, I really don't see why. You can talk with most people believing in some really absurd conspiracy theories that can give you a lot of research behind their beliefs. Why is one "high IQ" and the other "low IQ" ?
Do you agree that some ideas are more expected of the high IQ, others with the low IQ, even as both sets of ideas are wrong? In my opinion, the marks of a high-IQ idea are its level of consistency with itself, with the relevant facts and with the relevant background knowledge (which makes it more probable) and the level of complexity of the fundamental framework (which makes it less probable). I sometimes call critical race theory the "second-best explanation" for racial differences. It ranks high, because the people who developed it and who now accept it are not idiots.
>Do you agree that some ideas are more expected of the high IQ, others with the low IQ, even as both sets of ideas are wrong
I really don't know about that, you can find many very accomplished people through out history that have believed "dumb things"(things that were unfounded).
>In my opinion, the marks of a high-IQ idea are its level of consistency with itself, with the relevant facts and with the relevant background knowledge (which makes it more probable) and the level of complexity of the fundamental framework (which makes it less probable).
I mostly agree.
>I sometimes call critical race theory the "second-best explanation" for racial differences.
I certainly wouldn't, I would say that the second best explanation for racial differences is "purely environmental", critical race theory just sounds insane(it is).
>It ranks high, because the people who developed it and who now accept it are not idiots
How do you know that? Have you met all those people and studied them? Feminists, deniers of biology, school teachers, social workers, antifa, and other trash certainly do seem quite low IQ(very emotional, violent, close minded, and adherents of established dogma).
The people who develop such ideological theories themselves cannot be idiots because they possess a verbal aptitude to flexibly adjust categories, definitions and insinuations of premises and conflate them enough for their political ends. The people who can understand these theories but not defend them cohesively in the face of contradicting evidence are above average. Those who only parrot such ideological beliefs tend to not be very smart. There is always a stratification of groups within the context of each ideological bloc. Recognizing patterns of political funding, disparate facts, contradicting evidence and suspected motives is not presumptively lower IQ. Distrust in these institutions is more likely lead to such thinking, and the claims made in proportional plausibility depend on the engagement of either/and reasoning processes/emotional biases.
If one claims based on present technology, x units of y objects at z period of time cannot be made without logistical effort b in the same way someone would claim this picture substantiates a claim of a amount of joules was released based on b size of explosion and c qualities of movement as well as testimonies of z level damage then I’d argue such individuals are not low IQ. On the other hand if someone simply states it is fourth dimensional demons that are against us, I’d argue that would be low IQ. In the grand scheme of things, humans have always have interests that are conflicting. Leaving things to chance is not what intelligent people do, especially things in their control. Also, you can always evaluate the belief structure of such purported adversial parties because they have a disinclination to engage, spew ad hominems and/or delegate to some other authoritative entity. Usually people who are intellectually honest do not do such things.
A great deal of intellectual twaddle like Freudianism, CRT, Marxism, etc. is defended with high level verbal precocity but the underlying logical foundations are weak. Many people are taken in by the verbal precocity but ignore the shaky foundations. Marx was already on the ropes when the marginal revolution destroyed the labor theory of value but the Bolshevik revolution rescued Marxism (for a while). Some of these movements have gotten a leg up because they were popular among disproportionately influential Jewish intellectuals. Some Jewish Marxists likened Marxist intellectual leaders to rabbis doing Talmudic exercises.
He's made the calculation that he can get enough prog/commie pass points to state other unsavory conclusions if he demeans conservatives as dumb from time to time; also, he fits in better with libs/progs with his phenotype. I wouldn't take it seriously.
Believing ideological conspiracies is epistemically stupid but instrumentally intellegent. People who believe in wokeness ascend the heirarchy in leftist institutions to their own advantage.
There doesn't seem to be similar advantages to believing non-idealogical conspiracies like faked moon landings.
Actual elites (e.g. CEO's, major scientists, etc) aren't the biggest personal believers in CRT, DEI, etc. They perform those things because it's mandated both by the government (threat of civil rights lawsuits) and is good optics for the far-left press. Search right now and you'll see many career CRT/DEI contractors complaining about how their Black History Month contracts have dried up this year, due to the economy. It's a social luxury.
Basically, smart white conservatives may contemptuously promote Qanon shit to win their low-IQ white voters, just as smart white liberals do the same for their low-IQ non-white voters.
The animating forces in American conservatism didn't lock down their entire society for two years. They have or are about to pass universal school choice in red states, which are also the low tax, low COLA, fast growing places people want to move to. The stuff you complain has not bearing on life at all, your hunting for excuses.
I think it's more a matter of you WANTING conservatism to be dumb because it lets you off the hook of picking a side. Also, you have degenerate social views that you can't defend.
Give it up, they will NEVER like you, you have committed the cardinal sins of talking bad about their protected, sacrosanct minorities and groups ( liberal women and Afro-americans)
Its weird that you insist so much on this IQ fantasy, when you described correctly whats going on in your "why is everything liberal" article from a year ago....
Summaziring: "liberals just want to win MORE than conservatives do"
This really, is ALL the difference, since 1789.
From the asinine declaration that"we are all equal" ( yeah, sure) their whole ideological castle cant hold pushback and crumbles like a sand castle not only under close scrutiny, but in front of REALITY.
To a perfect recent example, the LGBT marriage law, requiring some re-shaping of society, a thing to which most conservatives just said collectively "meh" ( also, something that was promoted by a "conservative" judge, Kennedy..)
And now they complain about LGBT topics being taught to kids.
LOL, do they ever want to actually WIN or at least, resist?
The side that says that "men can get pregnant", that eeeverything bad is the fault of straight white men, and that homosex is the best thing ever CANNOT hold the title of being high IQ, or even LOW IQ...they're totally outside of ANY kind of measurement of IQ, and detached from human reality..
And yes, their conspiracy nonsense (plenty of it) is validated by their perpetual circlejerk and their owning of academia and most media.
So yes, the "Jews with space lasers" is laughable, but on the other side when they cannot define what a woman is, like this mega brain:
Not sure about specific claims of random machines from foreign countries altering results but there is a notable sealed won lawsuit in the states of ballot manipulation. Shedding just means there is a chance of accidentally puncturing the skin with the sharp tip of a needle when mishandled, which was taken out of context as pathogenically-induced skin-like spore production of viral material. The main thing about American conservatism is that the demographics that underlie them tend to be religious and spew things about holy gods, end times or emotionally-induced fear and/or overstate their case for catastrophism. Republicans might have slightly higher IQ simply because less free gib voters and more business oriented people are incentivized by such policies. The schooled liberals have a higher aptitude for mechanistic thinking, in the same way of new-age atheists but they leave some overstated assumptions untested because of an emotionally implicit response that is programmed to prevent them from exploring ideas associated with perceived harm even though they technically know the differences of groups and their actions tend to be counter to their signalling claims, also being more politically active is associated with the wealthier kinds of people as they have a more vested effort, so a large upper middle class cross section of professionals desire to be part of this ingroup while ESG funds from black rock, vanguard and whatnot gets distributed by supranational interests. Libertarians are rare because to get to that position requires a mix of high openness and cognition of certain principles to the end, like what if only people who were economically unproductive was allowed to exist and NAP principle, as well as looking at evidence of corruption. Since both conservatives and liberals are managed establishmentarian partisan interests with the same repeating points, any deviation away usually means either ignorance or higher cognition. Don’t know, the apathetic and etc groups are similar in relation to those that answer abstain, etc on other social questions because they lack the abilities to make claims about certain things/events in the world. Also social conservatism tends to be of people who argue from traditionalist perspectives, like my school teacher arguing it was good times when boys at the private school were allowed to go through hazing rituals because it created meaningful bonds, rather than any empirical evidence that such activities lead to any lasting positive outcomes. That being said, having an inclination to do the same thing over and over does lead to predictable results and predictable societies if heuristically it was done many times over and was stable in some function or form.
I suggest you better organize your comments. A lot of high-level thought went into it, but it may be difficult for anyone to accept the invitation to join you inside your head. You have a single sentence that meanders aimlessly across many barely-related topics: "The schooled liberals have... gets distributed by supranational interests."
Administrators receive funds from Equity, Diversity and Inclusion based policies that are implemented through third-party sources like Blackrock, Vanguard and other large shareholder corporations which are politically linked with various other Non-Governmental organizations with specific objectives, and the adherents of such policies (their educators and educatees) are the de facto recipients of such ideological training. Is that cohesive enough for you,
As a libertarian, I see no need to defend dumb conservatives. However, the libertarian Jan Narveson (Harvard grad) wrote a little book several years ago (_You and the State_), where he argued that modern liberals (as opposed to classical liberals) should be considered conservatives given their fierce defense of the statist quo in terms of the welfare/warfare state. As I see it, the libertarians are a tiny elite with the best ideas who up against these “Red” Tories and other Tory variants who threaten liberty and prosperity. One problem with liberals is that they are often emotionally unstable, which leads them to prefer security over liberty and a more bucolic existence (aka radical environmentalism); hence, their need to ally with low I.Q. blacks, etc. to protect and/or advance the welfare state in the face of mainstream conservative opposition.
"We have the best ideas, please don't notice that there are zero successful libertarian polities that we can point to"
"We are not malignant defectors, the reason we can't point to any successful libertarian societies is... "
---
My 2c:
Libertarianism is a good system for grifting classical liberals, who struggle to make a moral or ideological case against it.
It is weak against syndicalist political systems, which is something Murray Rothbard himself eventually figured out.
Many libertarian adherents have been blinded by their excitement around how well they think -they personally- will do under a libertarian system and as such they can't see that their system doesn't actually work at scale - other than as a mechanism to underinvest in and parasitize a host society of classical liberals.
Libertarianism is mostly about not wanting to be responsible.
It doesn't take politics seriously enough to win at politics. Look at what the libertarian party looks like, what a joke.
It wants people to be responsible and respectful of others, but also thinks this can be done in a multicultural state of drugged out sex perverts with sub-tier IQs.
The closest thing to "responsible libertarianism" is Singapore, and Singapore leans heavily on the authoritarian and socially conservative axis, yet somehow gets the most libertarian outcomes on things that libertarians care most about.
When you consider that the state is negative sum, there are zero successful welfare states either--they are all parasitic on the market. The state remains but it is also true that there has been a dramatic ideological shift from the Left to the Right over the last 100+ years. Unless you think that libertarian regimes are supposed to come into existence spontaneously, their lack of existence just might have something to do with the fact that statist ignorance is still significant. Many things that exist in our world would likely have been viewed as impossible in the past.
Hah, 'bucolic'. You should hear my 92-year-old uncle talk about the hippies back in the day who thought they would come to rural areas and live the simple life, communes and whatnot. He and many others enjoyed the entertainment (and income) as successive waves learned that 1. farming is not only hard hard hard work but extremely complex, and 2. you cannot 'simply' decide not to figure it out or you will starve and freeze.
I was talking off-the-clock about a year ago with my CEO (spouse of a tenured prof) who was spouting off about how wonderful it was that gas/diesel prices had tripled and should be even more expensive. I ticked off about seven ways that makes food more expensive by a factor of several, which slowed that roll not a bit. I mentioned how much more that compounded cost escalation affects the poor and indigent our organization constantly emotes about knocking ourselves out to help. Suddenly! the conversation was over.
Richard Hanania chose his words carefully: "animating forces." The weird thing about young-Earth creationism is that it was much more of an animating force for the political left than the right. The left used it to win elections even in conservative districts. In the nineties, the animating forces were neither young-Earth creationism nor conspiracy theories but instead lower taxes and small government. That stands in sharp contrast to what the animating forces for them are currently: a set of conspiracy theories driven not by rational thought but by authoritarian adherence.
I've spent three decades on this question now, and nothing has changed.
1) The IQ presumption in all research I know of is due to using the proxy of degrees. This gives a bias to the 'nonsense degrees' favored by women and librals. And it discounts the disutility of paying for nonsense degrees to males and conservatives. In other words, teachers, social workers, psychology, sociology, 'studies', language and history etc, are the lowest paid, least capable students that still obtain college degrees.
2) Historically "Liberals are smarter than conservatives, and republicans are smarter than democrats, and libertarians are the smartest of all." The reason is group size and group distribution. Just as women are more narrowly distributed than men, liberals are mor narrowly distributed that conservatives.
3) The difference between left and right is cognitively female, emathizing, verbal, in time, consuming vs cognitively male, systematizing, operational, over-time, and capitalizing. We are in an era where verbal facility is more rewarded than at any previous time in history. (for a while yet). We are approaching the era where verbal facility will be as automated as design and production has been automated.
So the difference between the factions is determined largely by the first-past-the-post election model, and who has captured what factions of the middle, working, laboring, and out-of-sight classes.
I would venture that the failure of the west to resist the new pseudoscientific religions of the postwar era is due to the replacement of the managerial class of government by the rise of credentialism in the academy (theoretical) and the decline of mertitocracy in military and industrial achivement (empirical).
A) I think the Conservative Party is actually schizophrenic. The country club crowd and the populists. I do not think you can treat that party as 1 party.
B) what if g was used instead of IQ? I’ve become very distrustful of the verbal IQ scores and how they seem to have become emphasised.
C) Lynn convinced me that males continue to develop their IQ late in adolescence, gaining 4 points. Since Democrats are skewed heavily female, is this accounted for?
Oppression narratives are the cognitively female and liberal version of cognitively male and conservative conspiracy narratives.
This sex difference in cognitive biases originates in sex differences in status seeking. Females seek status by evasion of responsibility and hyperconsumption, while males seek status by accumulatino of responsibilty and captialization.
So, the difference as in all things left vs right, is that we take male antisocial nonsense seriously because males are dangerous, and we ignore female antisocial nonsense because women aren't dangerous.
At least, women weren't dangerous until given the franchise. Now the opposite is true, and the present age is caused by the noise as the signal of women's influence in politics travels through the civilizations institutional, traditional, normative, habitual, and cognitive capital structures.
This particular problem (which I can't fully determine whether is cultural or biological) has allowed the industrialization of the female method of antisocial behavior using oppression narratives to take root in a population whose education, consumption, and voting is dominated by white females. (white females are the only group that defects from their ethnicity.
We endured marxism as we brought the lower classes into the franchise - a search for control.
Now we're enduring feminism as we bring females in to the franchise - a search for contrrol
And unfortunately we've not falsified the female search for control as we have the lower class search for control.
The NYTimes had an article about party self ID that broke it up by race, state, and education.
While location and race moved the starting point, every single curve looked exactly the same. The most liberal people for every given race/location pairing were at the doctorate and the no high school levels. The most conservative part of the curve were people with associates degrees.
If we did income instead of education I bet the conservative peak would be higher, but I expect the elongated C shape to be the same.
Conservatives is the part of responsible middle class people that pay their own bills and whose taxes fund their own services. Liberals are the party of people who are violent welfare sponges or rich enough to have luxury believes.
To some extent, isn't this dynamic a product of the post-45 system, in which certain types of rightwing politics or politic motivations are banned (possibly with good reason)?
Post '45 - there are only a handful of "right wing" modes of political organization that are allowed.
"Conservativism", which is a sort of non-ideological status-quo bias that inevitably becomes dominated by petty economic concerns
"Libertarianism", which is more sophisticated, but is functional left-liberalism wrapped up in a narrative package about individualism and choice and markets.
Others?
If the existing political system suppresses effective modes of right wing political organization (arguing that they constitute "fascism") - shouldn't it be expected that what ultimately remains will be a dysfunctional, corrupt mess?
The Cold War seemed to act a little bit like the War in Ukraine, wherein the powers that be will allow a little bit of rightwing political organization, a little nationalism, etc. in order to fight off a more dangerous external power.
But, once that conflict is resolved, the allowable right-wing space shrinks until all that remains is stupidity and corruption.
Intelligent and honest people flee, and then the equilibrium that emerges is what we see today, where the left/liberal coalition has a much higher level of (at least public) support by intelligent people.
One would reasonably expect that the level of push back against dismantling civil rights law (an example of intelligent right wing political organization) would be much higher than that against shrieking about Ohio, or against claims that the Biden admin isn't shooting down weather balloons fast enough.
"...so I would have to do a lot of coding." I sent a work email just last week where that phrase would have saved me several paragraphs, and also would have been completely misunderstood.
Sorry, but no one will ever convince me with these kinds of data that heavily indoctrinated liberals, i.e. extreme, are smart. I have been infiltrated into their midst in my working life for several decades. To the extent that 'smart' correlates with 'ability to think critically about facts in front of one's face', they are not. To the extent that I know some very smart people in my line of work, they are politically agnostic but know how to parrot the party line. It's a chimera, this kind of collapsed-proxy-mismeasurement approach to who is smart or dumb. The institutional capture correlates are more telling; incentives to assert allegiance to the Face-Eating Leopard Party are overwhelming amongst the nominally smart set. Yet the plumber never calls an academic to fix his theory.
The ~12 point difference between White "extremely liberal" and White "extremely conservative" tells us something important. The liberals rule the intellectual elite institutions. And, the gap is widening. This data in total seems embarrassing for conservatives. The usual way to save one's self from embarrassing data is: "It's complicated!"
When one takes the long view, we see that the Left has actually abandoned their most cherished ideas to a significant degree and moved closer to “conservatism” (minus the religion). Once upon a time many high IQ liberals were utterly entranced with socialism, which turned out to be disaster, and now they accept markets. And so it goes with other intellectual movements fronted by the Left, e.g., Freudianism, Boasian anthropology, etc. What happens when the Left ditches these ideas? They take their high IQ with them and raise the average IQ of “conservatism”.
I disagree with your assertion that we can "simplify" this data by removing the progression of time. If high IQ people are actively abandoning the Republicans, significantly so after 2015, that's a pretty clear indictment of the last ten years and the populist turn.
I have my own response: Who cares? Too much IQ and you develop eccentric taste in porn. The highest IQ region of the world, East Asia, is depopulating, threatening to derail the whole Chinese historical project. As are the high IQ secular Israelites. This debate maps IQ to raw social/political/historical power, and I don't see why that would be. This debate means everything for Hanania's refined sense of disgust and doesn't say anything definitive about the outcome of our historical moment.
Economically Left and Socially Conservative’ is normal for Nationalists and Populists outside the United States. Few Libertarian lovers of in constrained capitalism in Europe.
The word "age" doesn't appear anywhere on this post. This is seriously flawed. People's political affiliation is not something that is etched in stone. It changes over time, specially as we age and have children. People tend to become more conservative as we get older.
In the US there is a popular saying, "a conservative is somebody who has been mugged." If you've been physically attacked during a robbery, you're not likely to hold "refugees welcome" signs or vote for people that advocate defunding the police.
Would be interesting to look at ideology and voting at the +1SD and higher wordsums. Presumably you could lose the 0 to +1SD crowd and with enough brainpower at the top still outmaneuver your political opponents. If the Ivy League actually stops using standardized admissions tests in response to an affirmative action ban, it could leave a lot of talent out in the wilderness looking to storm the gates.
“Extreme conservatives show a similar pattern, with a high point around 2000, which I guess might be Tea Party libertarian times.” No, the Tea Party Libertarians formed as a response to the 2008 financial crisis (in particular in response to the subsequent bail outs)
I would imagine this is likely due to the fact the silent generation is all but extinct and older boomers are also on their way out. Although anecdotal, the most conservative people I've met in my life were also some of the oldest. This could also partly explain the plummeting of 'extremely conservative.'
As you mentioned, I think correlating political and cultural affiliation with IQ would be a difficult task, and more so as time goes on. Personally, I considered myself a libertarian and radical liberal during my teens and ceased to affiliate with a party or group at the dawn of my 20s as a direct result of my early disillusionment with them. Most millennials and zoomers seem to feel similarly, affiliating with "alt" groups if they affiliate with any at all. At the moment, I would be forced to deem myself part of the "I don't know" group simply due to the irrelevancy of the others to my life despite very well knowing what my beliefs are and having nuanced opinions on many things.
Something else I've noticed is that people tend to support what supports them. In the 2000s, a lot of boomers reluctantly began calling themselves "classical liberals" as if there was anything classical about them. This was spawned from their reluctance to forfeit any of their "socially liberal" views and lifestyles while admitting that socialism and communism would be a hindrance to their newly found economic prowess. Similarly, I see those in academia and other institutions maximizing degenerate hedonism due to the lack of selection pressures against it while lower classes are more prone to at least pretend, and it is very much make believe, that they're conservative in order to get by.
If we were to suddenly see the fabled collapse come to fruition, I would predict that 'extremely conservative' would skyrocket and liberal groups would plummet. There are a lot of factors that sustain and even promote 'liberal' lifestyles that wouldn't exist in a more primal environment. We currently live in a world where it's harder to die than live.
“This is somewhat of an unfair comparison as of course conspiracy theories are very popular in the leftist media and academia, only they don't get labelled as such (rather, it is Accepted Science).”
Ideologically based conspiracy theories reflect higher IQ than completely made up nonsense like Hugo Chavez voting machines or vaccine shedding. The animating forces in American conservatism are really dumb and getting dumber at a shockingly fast rate.
"Ideologically based conspiracy theories reflect higher IQ than completely made up nonsense like Hugo Chavez voting machines or vaccine shedding" Why? Believing in white privilege, critical race theory, that there is a mystical force out there called "white supremacy" that makes blacks commit crime and have low IQ, that evolution is made up thing used to make other races look bad, etc. This somehow makes leftists smart just because it's backed by some leftist scientists?
Most people, including most smart people, are highly irrational when it comes to their ideology. So believing irrational things which confirm your ideology (like "white supremacy") is not a strong signal of low intelligence.
In contrast, irrational beliefs without any ideological valence are less common among smart people. Smart people are usually able to sniff out stupid irrational beliefs when they do not confirm their own ideological biases.
Yeah, some conspiracy theories have the marks of a higher IQ, others lower IQ. It is not necessarily about probability. The higher-IQ conspiracy theories show evidence that a lot of higher-order thought affected them. It used to be: "Whites hate Blacks." Now it is: "Whites have an unconscious bias against People of Color that is unknowingly passed on through their traditions and institutions, even as they sincerely believe themselves to be non-racist. Asians are elevated to serve as a Model Minority at the expense of other PoC." The unconsciousness of the conspirators really is novel among conspiracy theories.
> The unconsciousness of the conspirators really is novel among conspiracy theories.
Not at all. It is a normal feature of traditional belief in witchcraft.
Did anyone ever believe that witches CONSPIRED without even knowing it?
People commonly believed that witches cast their curses without being aware of so doing.
This is more or less identical to the theory of structural racism.
https://www.takimag.com/article/2013-a-race-odyssey/
"Yeah, some conspiracy theories have the marks of a higher IQ, others lower IQ". Again, I really don't see why. You can talk with most people believing in some really absurd conspiracy theories that can give you a lot of research behind their beliefs. Why is one "high IQ" and the other "low IQ" ?
Do you agree that some ideas are more expected of the high IQ, others with the low IQ, even as both sets of ideas are wrong? In my opinion, the marks of a high-IQ idea are its level of consistency with itself, with the relevant facts and with the relevant background knowledge (which makes it more probable) and the level of complexity of the fundamental framework (which makes it less probable). I sometimes call critical race theory the "second-best explanation" for racial differences. It ranks high, because the people who developed it and who now accept it are not idiots.
>Do you agree that some ideas are more expected of the high IQ, others with the low IQ, even as both sets of ideas are wrong
I really don't know about that, you can find many very accomplished people through out history that have believed "dumb things"(things that were unfounded).
>In my opinion, the marks of a high-IQ idea are its level of consistency with itself, with the relevant facts and with the relevant background knowledge (which makes it more probable) and the level of complexity of the fundamental framework (which makes it less probable).
I mostly agree.
>I sometimes call critical race theory the "second-best explanation" for racial differences.
I certainly wouldn't, I would say that the second best explanation for racial differences is "purely environmental", critical race theory just sounds insane(it is).
>It ranks high, because the people who developed it and who now accept it are not idiots
How do you know that? Have you met all those people and studied them? Feminists, deniers of biology, school teachers, social workers, antifa, and other trash certainly do seem quite low IQ(very emotional, violent, close minded, and adherents of established dogma).
Bolshevism was a second best explanation for class differences. It was internally consistent to the extreme (in its way).
I guess it takes a high IQ to engage in "world building", but real life isn't some nerds sci-fi fantasy novel.
The people who develop such ideological theories themselves cannot be idiots because they possess a verbal aptitude to flexibly adjust categories, definitions and insinuations of premises and conflate them enough for their political ends. The people who can understand these theories but not defend them cohesively in the face of contradicting evidence are above average. Those who only parrot such ideological beliefs tend to not be very smart. There is always a stratification of groups within the context of each ideological bloc. Recognizing patterns of political funding, disparate facts, contradicting evidence and suspected motives is not presumptively lower IQ. Distrust in these institutions is more likely lead to such thinking, and the claims made in proportional plausibility depend on the engagement of either/and reasoning processes/emotional biases.
If one claims based on present technology, x units of y objects at z period of time cannot be made without logistical effort b in the same way someone would claim this picture substantiates a claim of a amount of joules was released based on b size of explosion and c qualities of movement as well as testimonies of z level damage then I’d argue such individuals are not low IQ. On the other hand if someone simply states it is fourth dimensional demons that are against us, I’d argue that would be low IQ. In the grand scheme of things, humans have always have interests that are conflicting. Leaving things to chance is not what intelligent people do, especially things in their control. Also, you can always evaluate the belief structure of such purported adversial parties because they have a disinclination to engage, spew ad hominems and/or delegate to some other authoritative entity. Usually people who are intellectually honest do not do such things.
A great deal of intellectual twaddle like Freudianism, CRT, Marxism, etc. is defended with high level verbal precocity but the underlying logical foundations are weak. Many people are taken in by the verbal precocity but ignore the shaky foundations. Marx was already on the ropes when the marginal revolution destroyed the labor theory of value but the Bolshevik revolution rescued Marxism (for a while). Some of these movements have gotten a leg up because they were popular among disproportionately influential Jewish intellectuals. Some Jewish Marxists likened Marxist intellectual leaders to rabbis doing Talmudic exercises.
Lack of conscious malign intent is a hallmark of African theories of witchcraft.
He's made the calculation that he can get enough prog/commie pass points to state other unsavory conclusions if he demeans conservatives as dumb from time to time; also, he fits in better with libs/progs with his phenotype. I wouldn't take it seriously.
Believing ideological conspiracies is epistemically stupid but instrumentally intellegent. People who believe in wokeness ascend the heirarchy in leftist institutions to their own advantage.
There doesn't seem to be similar advantages to believing non-idealogical conspiracies like faked moon landings.
Actual elites (e.g. CEO's, major scientists, etc) aren't the biggest personal believers in CRT, DEI, etc. They perform those things because it's mandated both by the government (threat of civil rights lawsuits) and is good optics for the far-left press. Search right now and you'll see many career CRT/DEI contractors complaining about how their Black History Month contracts have dried up this year, due to the economy. It's a social luxury.
Basically, smart white conservatives may contemptuously promote Qanon shit to win their low-IQ white voters, just as smart white liberals do the same for their low-IQ non-white voters.
Indeed , the left believes in smart conspiracies like Trump conspiring with Putin to steal the election via Facebook ads!
The animating forces in American conservatism didn't lock down their entire society for two years. They have or are about to pass universal school choice in red states, which are also the low tax, low COLA, fast growing places people want to move to. The stuff you complain has not bearing on life at all, your hunting for excuses.
I think it's more a matter of you WANTING conservatism to be dumb because it lets you off the hook of picking a side. Also, you have degenerate social views that you can't defend.
Still trying to appeal to liberals?
Give it up, they will NEVER like you, you have committed the cardinal sins of talking bad about their protected, sacrosanct minorities and groups ( liberal women and Afro-americans)
Its weird that you insist so much on this IQ fantasy, when you described correctly whats going on in your "why is everything liberal" article from a year ago....
Summaziring: "liberals just want to win MORE than conservatives do"
This really, is ALL the difference, since 1789.
From the asinine declaration that"we are all equal" ( yeah, sure) their whole ideological castle cant hold pushback and crumbles like a sand castle not only under close scrutiny, but in front of REALITY.
To a perfect recent example, the LGBT marriage law, requiring some re-shaping of society, a thing to which most conservatives just said collectively "meh" ( also, something that was promoted by a "conservative" judge, Kennedy..)
And now they complain about LGBT topics being taught to kids.
LOL, do they ever want to actually WIN or at least, resist?
The side that says that "men can get pregnant", that eeeverything bad is the fault of straight white men, and that homosex is the best thing ever CANNOT hold the title of being high IQ, or even LOW IQ...they're totally outside of ANY kind of measurement of IQ, and detached from human reality..
And yes, their conspiracy nonsense (plenty of it) is validated by their perpetual circlejerk and their owning of academia and most media.
So yes, the "Jews with space lasers" is laughable, but on the other side when they cannot define what a woman is, like this mega brain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZxi3AnRpxs
they can NEVER brag about having "high IQ"
(BTW, that high IQ mega brain was approved for the SCOTUS by our conservative heroes Romney and Murkowski....still think they want to WIN?)
Not sure about specific claims of random machines from foreign countries altering results but there is a notable sealed won lawsuit in the states of ballot manipulation. Shedding just means there is a chance of accidentally puncturing the skin with the sharp tip of a needle when mishandled, which was taken out of context as pathogenically-induced skin-like spore production of viral material. The main thing about American conservatism is that the demographics that underlie them tend to be religious and spew things about holy gods, end times or emotionally-induced fear and/or overstate their case for catastrophism. Republicans might have slightly higher IQ simply because less free gib voters and more business oriented people are incentivized by such policies. The schooled liberals have a higher aptitude for mechanistic thinking, in the same way of new-age atheists but they leave some overstated assumptions untested because of an emotionally implicit response that is programmed to prevent them from exploring ideas associated with perceived harm even though they technically know the differences of groups and their actions tend to be counter to their signalling claims, also being more politically active is associated with the wealthier kinds of people as they have a more vested effort, so a large upper middle class cross section of professionals desire to be part of this ingroup while ESG funds from black rock, vanguard and whatnot gets distributed by supranational interests. Libertarians are rare because to get to that position requires a mix of high openness and cognition of certain principles to the end, like what if only people who were economically unproductive was allowed to exist and NAP principle, as well as looking at evidence of corruption. Since both conservatives and liberals are managed establishmentarian partisan interests with the same repeating points, any deviation away usually means either ignorance or higher cognition. Don’t know, the apathetic and etc groups are similar in relation to those that answer abstain, etc on other social questions because they lack the abilities to make claims about certain things/events in the world. Also social conservatism tends to be of people who argue from traditionalist perspectives, like my school teacher arguing it was good times when boys at the private school were allowed to go through hazing rituals because it created meaningful bonds, rather than any empirical evidence that such activities lead to any lasting positive outcomes. That being said, having an inclination to do the same thing over and over does lead to predictable results and predictable societies if heuristically it was done many times over and was stable in some function or form.
I suggest you better organize your comments. A lot of high-level thought went into it, but it may be difficult for anyone to accept the invitation to join you inside your head. You have a single sentence that meanders aimlessly across many barely-related topics: "The schooled liberals have... gets distributed by supranational interests."
Administrators receive funds from Equity, Diversity and Inclusion based policies that are implemented through third-party sources like Blackrock, Vanguard and other large shareholder corporations which are politically linked with various other Non-Governmental organizations with specific objectives, and the adherents of such policies (their educators and educatees) are the de facto recipients of such ideological training. Is that cohesive enough for you,
As a libertarian, I see no need to defend dumb conservatives. However, the libertarian Jan Narveson (Harvard grad) wrote a little book several years ago (_You and the State_), where he argued that modern liberals (as opposed to classical liberals) should be considered conservatives given their fierce defense of the statist quo in terms of the welfare/warfare state. As I see it, the libertarians are a tiny elite with the best ideas who up against these “Red” Tories and other Tory variants who threaten liberty and prosperity. One problem with liberals is that they are often emotionally unstable, which leads them to prefer security over liberty and a more bucolic existence (aka radical environmentalism); hence, their need to ally with low I.Q. blacks, etc. to protect and/or advance the welfare state in the face of mainstream conservative opposition.
"We have the best ideas, please don't notice that there are zero successful libertarian polities that we can point to"
"We are not malignant defectors, the reason we can't point to any successful libertarian societies is... "
---
My 2c:
Libertarianism is a good system for grifting classical liberals, who struggle to make a moral or ideological case against it.
It is weak against syndicalist political systems, which is something Murray Rothbard himself eventually figured out.
Many libertarian adherents have been blinded by their excitement around how well they think -they personally- will do under a libertarian system and as such they can't see that their system doesn't actually work at scale - other than as a mechanism to underinvest in and parasitize a host society of classical liberals.
Libertarianism is mostly about not wanting to be responsible.
It doesn't take politics seriously enough to win at politics. Look at what the libertarian party looks like, what a joke.
It wants people to be responsible and respectful of others, but also thinks this can be done in a multicultural state of drugged out sex perverts with sub-tier IQs.
The closest thing to "responsible libertarianism" is Singapore, and Singapore leans heavily on the authoritarian and socially conservative axis, yet somehow gets the most libertarian outcomes on things that libertarians care most about.
When you consider that the state is negative sum, there are zero successful welfare states either--they are all parasitic on the market. The state remains but it is also true that there has been a dramatic ideological shift from the Left to the Right over the last 100+ years. Unless you think that libertarian regimes are supposed to come into existence spontaneously, their lack of existence just might have something to do with the fact that statist ignorance is still significant. Many things that exist in our world would likely have been viewed as impossible in the past.
Hah, 'bucolic'. You should hear my 92-year-old uncle talk about the hippies back in the day who thought they would come to rural areas and live the simple life, communes and whatnot. He and many others enjoyed the entertainment (and income) as successive waves learned that 1. farming is not only hard hard hard work but extremely complex, and 2. you cannot 'simply' decide not to figure it out or you will starve and freeze.
I was talking off-the-clock about a year ago with my CEO (spouse of a tenured prof) who was spouting off about how wonderful it was that gas/diesel prices had tripled and should be even more expensive. I ticked off about seven ways that makes food more expensive by a factor of several, which slowed that roll not a bit. I mentioned how much more that compounded cost escalation affects the poor and indigent our organization constantly emotes about knocking ourselves out to help. Suddenly! the conversation was over.
Richard Hanania chose his words carefully: "animating forces." The weird thing about young-Earth creationism is that it was much more of an animating force for the political left than the right. The left used it to win elections even in conservative districts. In the nineties, the animating forces were neither young-Earth creationism nor conspiracy theories but instead lower taxes and small government. That stands in sharp contrast to what the animating forces for them are currently: a set of conspiracy theories driven not by rational thought but by authoritarian adherence.
I mean if you define conservatives as "whatever I want them to be so I'm off the hook" then its easy to be "too kool for school."
I've spent three decades on this question now, and nothing has changed.
1) The IQ presumption in all research I know of is due to using the proxy of degrees. This gives a bias to the 'nonsense degrees' favored by women and librals. And it discounts the disutility of paying for nonsense degrees to males and conservatives. In other words, teachers, social workers, psychology, sociology, 'studies', language and history etc, are the lowest paid, least capable students that still obtain college degrees.
2) Historically "Liberals are smarter than conservatives, and republicans are smarter than democrats, and libertarians are the smartest of all." The reason is group size and group distribution. Just as women are more narrowly distributed than men, liberals are mor narrowly distributed that conservatives.
3) The difference between left and right is cognitively female, emathizing, verbal, in time, consuming vs cognitively male, systematizing, operational, over-time, and capitalizing. We are in an era where verbal facility is more rewarded than at any previous time in history. (for a while yet). We are approaching the era where verbal facility will be as automated as design and production has been automated.
So the difference between the factions is determined largely by the first-past-the-post election model, and who has captured what factions of the middle, working, laboring, and out-of-sight classes.
I would venture that the failure of the west to resist the new pseudoscientific religions of the postwar era is due to the replacement of the managerial class of government by the rise of credentialism in the academy (theoretical) and the decline of mertitocracy in military and industrial achivement (empirical).
A) I think the Conservative Party is actually schizophrenic. The country club crowd and the populists. I do not think you can treat that party as 1 party.
B) what if g was used instead of IQ? I’ve become very distrustful of the verbal IQ scores and how they seem to have become emphasised.
C) Lynn convinced me that males continue to develop their IQ late in adolescence, gaining 4 points. Since Democrats are skewed heavily female, is this accounted for?
One more bit.
Oppression narratives are the cognitively female and liberal version of cognitively male and conservative conspiracy narratives.
This sex difference in cognitive biases originates in sex differences in status seeking. Females seek status by evasion of responsibility and hyperconsumption, while males seek status by accumulatino of responsibilty and captialization.
So, the difference as in all things left vs right, is that we take male antisocial nonsense seriously because males are dangerous, and we ignore female antisocial nonsense because women aren't dangerous.
At least, women weren't dangerous until given the franchise. Now the opposite is true, and the present age is caused by the noise as the signal of women's influence in politics travels through the civilizations institutional, traditional, normative, habitual, and cognitive capital structures.
This particular problem (which I can't fully determine whether is cultural or biological) has allowed the industrialization of the female method of antisocial behavior using oppression narratives to take root in a population whose education, consumption, and voting is dominated by white females. (white females are the only group that defects from their ethnicity.
We endured marxism as we brought the lower classes into the franchise - a search for control.
Now we're enduring feminism as we bring females in to the franchise - a search for contrrol
And unfortunately we've not falsified the female search for control as we have the lower class search for control.
The NYTimes had an article about party self ID that broke it up by race, state, and education.
While location and race moved the starting point, every single curve looked exactly the same. The most liberal people for every given race/location pairing were at the doctorate and the no high school levels. The most conservative part of the curve were people with associates degrees.
If we did income instead of education I bet the conservative peak would be higher, but I expect the elongated C shape to be the same.
Conservatives is the part of responsible middle class people that pay their own bills and whose taxes fund their own services. Liberals are the party of people who are violent welfare sponges or rich enough to have luxury believes.
To some extent, isn't this dynamic a product of the post-45 system, in which certain types of rightwing politics or politic motivations are banned (possibly with good reason)?
Post '45 - there are only a handful of "right wing" modes of political organization that are allowed.
"Conservativism", which is a sort of non-ideological status-quo bias that inevitably becomes dominated by petty economic concerns
"Libertarianism", which is more sophisticated, but is functional left-liberalism wrapped up in a narrative package about individualism and choice and markets.
Others?
If the existing political system suppresses effective modes of right wing political organization (arguing that they constitute "fascism") - shouldn't it be expected that what ultimately remains will be a dysfunctional, corrupt mess?
The Cold War seemed to act a little bit like the War in Ukraine, wherein the powers that be will allow a little bit of rightwing political organization, a little nationalism, etc. in order to fight off a more dangerous external power.
But, once that conflict is resolved, the allowable right-wing space shrinks until all that remains is stupidity and corruption.
Intelligent and honest people flee, and then the equilibrium that emerges is what we see today, where the left/liberal coalition has a much higher level of (at least public) support by intelligent people.
One would reasonably expect that the level of push back against dismantling civil rights law (an example of intelligent right wing political organization) would be much higher than that against shrieking about Ohio, or against claims that the Biden admin isn't shooting down weather balloons fast enough.
"...so I would have to do a lot of coding." I sent a work email just last week where that phrase would have saved me several paragraphs, and also would have been completely misunderstood.
Sorry, but no one will ever convince me with these kinds of data that heavily indoctrinated liberals, i.e. extreme, are smart. I have been infiltrated into their midst in my working life for several decades. To the extent that 'smart' correlates with 'ability to think critically about facts in front of one's face', they are not. To the extent that I know some very smart people in my line of work, they are politically agnostic but know how to parrot the party line. It's a chimera, this kind of collapsed-proxy-mismeasurement approach to who is smart or dumb. The institutional capture correlates are more telling; incentives to assert allegiance to the Face-Eating Leopard Party are overwhelming amongst the nominally smart set. Yet the plumber never calls an academic to fix his theory.
The ~12 point difference between White "extremely liberal" and White "extremely conservative" tells us something important. The liberals rule the intellectual elite institutions. And, the gap is widening. This data in total seems embarrassing for conservatives. The usual way to save one's self from embarrassing data is: "It's complicated!"
When one takes the long view, we see that the Left has actually abandoned their most cherished ideas to a significant degree and moved closer to “conservatism” (minus the religion). Once upon a time many high IQ liberals were utterly entranced with socialism, which turned out to be disaster, and now they accept markets. And so it goes with other intellectual movements fronted by the Left, e.g., Freudianism, Boasian anthropology, etc. What happens when the Left ditches these ideas? They take their high IQ with them and raise the average IQ of “conservatism”.
Please add + geom_point() for the curves and geom_jitter() for the range values, also, why not geom_boxplot() there?
I disagree with your assertion that we can "simplify" this data by removing the progression of time. If high IQ people are actively abandoning the Republicans, significantly so after 2015, that's a pretty clear indictment of the last ten years and the populist turn.
I have my own response: Who cares? Too much IQ and you develop eccentric taste in porn. The highest IQ region of the world, East Asia, is depopulating, threatening to derail the whole Chinese historical project. As are the high IQ secular Israelites. This debate maps IQ to raw social/political/historical power, and I don't see why that would be. This debate means everything for Hanania's refined sense of disgust and doesn't say anything definitive about the outcome of our historical moment.
Economically Left and Socially Conservative’ is normal for Nationalists and Populists outside the United States. Few Libertarian lovers of in constrained capitalism in Europe.
The word "age" doesn't appear anywhere on this post. This is seriously flawed. People's political affiliation is not something that is etched in stone. It changes over time, specially as we age and have children. People tend to become more conservative as we get older.
In the US there is a popular saying, "a conservative is somebody who has been mugged." If you've been physically attacked during a robbery, you're not likely to hold "refugees welcome" signs or vote for people that advocate defunding the police.
What three parties? Are you counting Stram Kurs in here?
I see DF and NB as the two nationalist parties - what other party are you counting, that I am not?
Would be interesting to look at ideology and voting at the +1SD and higher wordsums. Presumably you could lose the 0 to +1SD crowd and with enough brainpower at the top still outmaneuver your political opponents. If the Ivy League actually stops using standardized admissions tests in response to an affirmative action ban, it could leave a lot of talent out in the wilderness looking to storm the gates.
“Extreme conservatives show a similar pattern, with a high point around 2000, which I guess might be Tea Party libertarian times.” No, the Tea Party Libertarians formed as a response to the 2008 financial crisis (in particular in response to the subsequent bail outs)
"Strong Republican shows a marked decline."
I would imagine this is likely due to the fact the silent generation is all but extinct and older boomers are also on their way out. Although anecdotal, the most conservative people I've met in my life were also some of the oldest. This could also partly explain the plummeting of 'extremely conservative.'
As you mentioned, I think correlating political and cultural affiliation with IQ would be a difficult task, and more so as time goes on. Personally, I considered myself a libertarian and radical liberal during my teens and ceased to affiliate with a party or group at the dawn of my 20s as a direct result of my early disillusionment with them. Most millennials and zoomers seem to feel similarly, affiliating with "alt" groups if they affiliate with any at all. At the moment, I would be forced to deem myself part of the "I don't know" group simply due to the irrelevancy of the others to my life despite very well knowing what my beliefs are and having nuanced opinions on many things.
Something else I've noticed is that people tend to support what supports them. In the 2000s, a lot of boomers reluctantly began calling themselves "classical liberals" as if there was anything classical about them. This was spawned from their reluctance to forfeit any of their "socially liberal" views and lifestyles while admitting that socialism and communism would be a hindrance to their newly found economic prowess. Similarly, I see those in academia and other institutions maximizing degenerate hedonism due to the lack of selection pressures against it while lower classes are more prone to at least pretend, and it is very much make believe, that they're conservative in order to get by.
If we were to suddenly see the fabled collapse come to fruition, I would predict that 'extremely conservative' would skyrocket and liberal groups would plummet. There are a lot of factors that sustain and even promote 'liberal' lifestyles that wouldn't exist in a more primal environment. We currently live in a world where it's harder to die than live.