“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.
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!"
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.
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!"
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.