Are Liberals and Atheists More Evolved?

Are liberals and atheists smarter and more evolved than conservatives? Yes, according to a new (and, needless to say, controversial) study by psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa:

Kanazawa's theory is that intelligence—particularly our ability for on-the-spot problem solving and reasoning—arose as an adaptation to deal with the unusual and unexpected, such as a sudden forest fire.

Since disasters like that are rare in daily life, responding to them wouldn't likely be something our ancestors were hard-wired to "know" how to do. Surviving the fire required both the ability to think up a new behavior, and the willingness to try it out.

Passed down via genetics, those two traits are still the calling cards of an intelligent brain—expressed as a tendency toward adopting nontraditional social values and preferences, Kanazawa says in his new study, published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

As a result of their iconoclastic ancestry, he suggests, people with higher levels of intelligence are more likely to adopt social values and behaviors that are relatively new to human life—liberalism, atheism, staying up late, and (for men) monogamy, for example.


Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

Wow, what poor science. It never should have been posted, it's so crackpot.

Complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Complete misapplication of one's own moral and ethical beliefs to support one's crackpot theory.

Well, maybe it was good for a brief laugh, but there's the danger that some idiot (like a Scientologist) will belive it.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Misuse of the term "evolution". If liberals and atheists are more likely to survive to sexual maturity and more likely to produce surviving offspring, they might arguably be referred to as "more evolved".
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Whoopsie-apologies for anyone having to go through all them there typos.

Perizade: a bit of disagreement here, based on a couple things, first, that fossils do not describe what any given lifeform does or does not know, or believe, and second, it's a kind of bogus claim-that the absence of belief proves animals were athiest. That's kinda silly. One does not define animals in terms of theistic or non-theistic tendencies. But that's mostly just a quibble.

It's along the line of "How does something without free will, no it has no free will? Or you could use conciousness as well.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Another fallacy of the tests-the maps used for intelligence. I detect a bias towards an academic form of intelligence. Harkens back to problems with IQ tests, where it was discovered that a functional problem with them, is what the tests measured. An example recently, one of many tests, where it was discovered that chimps and some monkies have better short term memory than humans. And yes, memory is a component of intelligence, if one considereds problem solving as a major element of intelligence. What kind of intelligence were they measuring? This is not addressed. Is it academic intelligence? Is it basic street smarts? Is it the ability to remember landscape forms to manouver around a forest?

So they're smarter-in what way? And in what situations? And sure, I could get into the whole 'sure smacks of measuring the width of heads now, don't it' angle, but that'll just set some delicate egos on fire. And why do liberals and athiests have to prove superior intellect? What's the allegedly objective reasoning behind this study? I can't prove, but feel that the objective could potentially be a desire to prove the reasoning behind one's position, based on any findings that demonstrate an overall greater intellectual capacity-'See? we're right, because we're smarter.'

Never mind that one does not even need to be a physicist to observe the obvious-that questions of such nature, such as is there conciousness, a soul, free will, or God, are very very likely to exist comfortably within a 4D and 5D dimension. We're developing instruments to observe such, but they're primitive. In other words: attempting to define, explore, or dismiss, the nature of things or even non-things, on higher dimensional planes, using only a # dimensional mind, which the secularists insist is the case anyways, will net very poor results, if any results.

I feel, personally, that athiests are far better off simply stating personal bias-like vegetarians. Should a vegetarian say to me (and some have) "I don't eat meat out of personal choice, because this is what I believe animals to be", I have no argument, I'm cool. Just don't preach to me, we'll get along fine. But when they use the biological argument, well now. Same with athiests. I got no problem with a simple, much more practical, and not at all a sweeping statement-"I choose to not believe in God, or that there is meaning to it all, or conciousness or mind."

But no, they gotta go and do exactly what many of the more fundamentalist Christians do (and yes, there are many, many liberal Christians, who talk of their faith as personal choice.) which is to make a sweeping pronouncement, as if it's fact, and that's all there is to it. Because even a cursory bit of research will easily demonstrate that it aint no fact. I'd love to see an athiest actually use the phrase I suggested. To describe it in terms of personal choice, nothing more. Because we all know, we're on a wee little planet, in a very large universe, with lot's of extra dimensions we don't have access to, so making grand pronouncements on the nature of it all, aint remotely rational.

And how does this relate to the study? So some liberals and secularists are allegedly smarter in some specific areas. Or perhaps slightly more adapted. So? Whoopy doo. I'm plenty smart6 myself, and have friends who are much smarter. Heck, I have a pagan friend whose smarter. Does that mean the pagans are right? Nope. It's generally meaningless, and once again, the athiests prove that their not quite getting the point. No big deal-welcome to the human race, lot's of spend lot's of time getting some points, not getting others, and generally having quite a good time mucking about in all of that.

In the meantime, I shall insist to any of my athiest friends that the least they could do, is to either keep their views to themselves, or at least have mininum social skills-simply hold that a certain viewpoint, or way of looking at things, is personal choice, and no more than that.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.

Email This Post to a Friend
"Are Liberals and Atheists More Evolved?"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.


Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More