IQ vs. Political Leaning

I posted in an earlier thread: archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/162752822

I was never replied to; I am reposting what I wrote in the hopes of generating some discussion and hearing feedback to my idea.

(1/4)

Other urls found in this thread:

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/07/scientific-paper-conservatives-are-stoopid-so-there/#709d3d04553d
youtube.com/watch?v=tIeEotdOVew
youtu.be/keWX55SpYmU
prri.org/research/poll-post-election-holiday-war-christmas/
infowars.com/new-study-confirms-liberals-are-far-more-intolerant-of-other-peoples-opinions/
christianforums.com/threads/studies-find-liberals-lie-cheat-steal-more-than-conservatives.7245849/
insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/27/study-finds-those-graduate-education-are-far-more-liberal-peers
iahymnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/new-study-shows-liberals-have-a-lower-average-iq-than-conservatives/
journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

OP's og post:

Why do you think IQs of liberals are so much higher than for conservatives?

What I originally replied to:

Libertarians are far higher than liberals.

The reason liberals have a higher iq than conservatives is that duller people have problems with abstract reasoning. They won't be able to hold an abstract ideology in their head. a dull person simply does not have the ability. the conservative cares about what is around him and what effects him in reality.

There are even less libertarians because it requires abstract thought and why they are exclusively white males.

What is amazing is that being liberal is not good for offspring. They understood this a long time ago and hence pushed for shitskins.

(3/4)

My reply to the above:

To expand this thought:

Lower-IQ people are forced into the real world more than higher-IQ people and face the harsh realities of life at in a very real sense. And they often do this at a much younger age than do high-IQ people.

They then bear the burden (and privilege) of wisening up and dealing with "real life." Lower-IQ people will be less invested into intellectualism and more invested in the lower Maslow needs like relationships, family, children, etc.

In this way, lower-IQ people are often the true champions of common-sense and wisdom in society. Without the shield of overprotectionism that higher-IQ families and universities provide, they learn about life and learn about it quick.

Somewhat tangentially: In this vein of thought, the difference between heuristic time-and-place knowledge building (essentially learning by doing and living) and traditional scientific inquisition (scientific method, constant skepticism as to the validity of any knowledge that cannot tested in a lab and peer reviewed) must be understood. In the realm of human affairs, common sense wisdom should predominate. In the realm of extending the reach of our concrete knowledge about the nature of the physical universe, science should predominate.

By failing to incorporate an understanding of the above dichotomy since the scientific revolution, scientism, materialism, and an overextended technologism has materialized to overthrow the ark of conventional wisdom that our society had accumulated up until that point. See the left's many delusions (gender theory, amorality/relativism) for an example of science's attempted encroachment upon common sense. See the right's denial of global warming for an example of common sense's attempted encroachment upon the realm of science.

(4/4)

liberals are literally creating a dysgenic welfare class of retards for permanent votes and you think that's legitimate data?

...

>They understood this a long time ago and hence pushed for shitskins.

I don't dispute these claims but this is an interesting observation. It's also important to note that because liberals are higher IQ they are likely to have more wealth which enables them to insulate themselves from shit skins in gated communities. That being said norther US cities tend to be some of the MOST racially segregated in the USA.

The salient issue is that one's liberalism in a way ensures they don't have to deal with "vibrancy" and are able to maintain these views. It's been shown that proximity to nogs reduces the desire to support a welfare state and hold liberal views but, in certain instances, if you remove the nogs and shitskins willingness to support liberal policies increases.

>stupid people have more kids
Thanks for proving OP's point, faggot

>People taking a biased study several years old that was administrated to pure white countries seriously and didn't even correctly identify "conservative" and "liberal" options per the study

forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/07/scientific-paper-conservatives-are-stoopid-so-there/#709d3d04553d

anarcho capitalism is the true intellectual political ideology

Because conservatives are just liberal bitches who do what the liberals want, slowly.

National Socialism is the true intellectual ideology.

based

Are you an idiot? 106 is your top score? You think that's impressive I bet. That's barely beyond a retard. Not a classic retard, but a social retard none-the-less.

>this autism
This "study" is debunked in every thread, yet gets reposted again and again. Go actually look at the study and how they're defining "social conservatism". Look at what correlation "racism" specifically has with IQ.

They just come up with a way of grouping their sample so that you have one group which consists of a mix of Whites + Nonwhites and another one which consists primarily of Whites. Then they ignore the race composition of the groups, which is what actually explains the IQ differences, and pretend they're talking about "social conservatives" and "social liberals".

*inhales*
PFFFFFFAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

Alt-right cucks are literal brainlets!

Picrelated: The average Trump supporter

Has anyone else thought that the standard deviation of IQ between conservatives and leftists correlate well with the male and female standard deviation, as well the standard deviation between whites and asians.

Even if that is true. Who cares about great ideas if theyre not grounded in reality?
The working class is always the first to suffer in any event but these people know what lifestyle suits them best. They know and respect differences in culture.
Leftwingers will never live what they preach but they will always try to be morally superior.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if leftists did not even care about real life application.
Intellectual circle jerk is not intelligence.

I can only speak for myself but I would be classified along the lines of a reactionary traditionalist. I doubt very many here on Sup Forums are conservative. How exactly is this graph applicable?

Self-hate and attraction to repugnant images are better predictions of political leaning than IQ could ever be. IQ serves to predict things like criminality, music taste, or job position

Could be, famalam. Not like it's gonna stop motivated opposition using biased/favorable interpretations of data where it suits them though.

pic unrelated, I just wanted to be roasted by some brain-chads.

Definitely true if you're looking at >muh Israel conservacucks, however the alt-right is a different strain of conservative. The alt-right as it is now is definitely well above average IQ, simply because it's a niche and abstract philosophy and it's so anti-utilitarian (being alt-right bears immense consequence for an individual and little to no benefit) in current society.

>Australian Mensa
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I m a lolbertarian and I have an IQ of 120.

Study is flawed because people assume what is considered liberal and conservative is static.

>thinking political ideology exists on a one-dimensional scale

high-iq people tend to be academics, detached from the reality of the world, have never worked the line or had a dangerous job, and associate with exchange students and foreign educators and mistakenly assume immigrants are similarly intelligent (as opposed to the reality that most immigrants are violent and stupid).

this is why high-iq people shouldn't be allowed to vote, they have a very naive view of the world.

>IQ doesn't matter when it comes to niggers but look at this graph of liberals having higher IQs!

125 IQ fag here, can confirm. I'm a liberal

>adolescent intellligence
how many cons do you see in adolescence
they tend to be such a small minority at that age

How can liberals discredit racial iq studies but as soon as this graph or ones similar are made they suddenly value iq a lot.

To sum up:
>lets test the most retarded conservatives and the most intelligent libruls!
>see goy? LIBRUL SMURT
>you don't want to be associated with dum dums do you? Become a nigloving librul!

Reminds me of that article that said interracial cuckoldry is the fetish of the intelectuals or some shit fucking LMAO. Only people with low IQ and oversocialized would fall for this though.

Have a pic soyfriend.

Very inaccurate. I have an IQ of 132 and I'd say my political leanings are conservative.

You don't know rich people if you think
A) there is a hint of liberality
B) you think we'd answer your questions on thought crime with honesty
You ought to see my business statement on principles. I'm soooo liberal. On paper.

These studies didn't survey people for their political beliefs, they had them take a test and then categorized them based on the results of the test.

Last time i saw this, I think someone mentioned that the source was MTurks. Not very reliable if you ask me.

Really wobbles the ol' walrus

"Mean adolescent intelligence"

I don't give a fuck what kids think. Just look at these gun control shills from fucking Parkland. Fucking bait thread.

Lol. Ironically, that's quite Marxian of you.

If you got that from an online test then your IQ is probably below 100 then. They move these tests 2 standard deviations to give results people like to hear, which puts you below avereage

People with IQs under 85 are fucking morons (niggers, criminals, etc.) and generally follow the midwits because of their perceived intelligence, but truth to them is less about truth and more about calculating the "potential for gibs generation".
People with IQs under 100 are brainlets (normies), and aren't smart enough to understand abstract concepts, so they generally view the world as it is.
People with IQs between 105 and around 120 are in the "midwit" zone ("college stupid", redditors, creative types, etc.). They're intelligent enough to be persuaded by abstract concepts like equality and marxism but too stupid to check or care about the facts underpinning them (evolution doesn't stop at the neck, the hereditary aristocracy did nothing wrong, etc.).
People with IQs over 125 are smart enough to understand abstract concepts, but still view the world as it is (libertarians, neoreactionaries, race realists, etc.).
Obviously the categories aren't exclusive - you'll find woke midwits and libshit geniuses, but they generally hold.

It's because High IQ people call themselves liberal because that's how you keep your high paying, high IQ job.

be me, be l30 iq be extremely conservative

youtube.com/watch?v=tIeEotdOVew

I totally agree with this

youtube.com/watch?v=tIeEotdOVew

>have 105 IQ
>absolutely redpilled

You're wrong.

He said they were general trends, not absolutes. Congratulations on being one of the exceptions.

Yeah ok that's why the world's scientists and academics with IQs 140+ are 95% liberal.

>Yeah ok that's why the world's (((scientists))) and academics with IQs 140+ are 95% liberal.
Doctor Schlomo said you shouldn't forget to sip on your soymilk daily, be advised.

>very liberal
>above average IQ
>lower net worth on average

What did Liberals mean by this?
How can you supposedly be more intelligent, but make less money.

>have iq of 138
>am a lawyer
>am left-libertarian and parted ways with the mainstream left long ago.
>people use the words "left" and "liberal" interchangeably.
>i use the word liberal to describe myself, but if it's to someone who does not understand the pc authoritarian left are not actually liberals, i will not use that word.
>at work, i obviously have to tone things down. i won't discuss religion or politics.

>How can you supposedly be more intelligent, but make less money.
IQ doesn't translate into knowledge and therefore it doesn't fucking matter how smart you're if aren't learning anything, liberals graduating in fucking gender studies obviously will always make less money than other people.

IQ of 141 here. The true redpill is that all of politics is just a show, and elections are only held so the people in charge know how many people are still watching. The media only allows candidates that will not upset the status quo to even make it to the election. By the time you get cast your vote you might aswell just write in “corporate puppet #1” or “corporate puppet #2”. The United States is a plutocracy, without one shred of democracy in there. Your democratic republic is an illusion. Dont believe me? See for yourself.

youtu.be/keWX55SpYmU

Dont vote. That time would be better spent doing literally anything else.

If you're a modern day liberal you're a fucking idiot.
Liberals are nutjobs.

This seems like back in the day when bill marr reporting that conservatives steal more then after awhile it comes out its the opposite. {was like 3 years of useing flase facks on late night TV shows and abcd midea networds. >prri.org/research/poll-post-election-holiday-war-christmas/
>infowars.com/new-study-confirms-liberals-are-far-more-intolerant-of-other-peoples-opinions/
The type B researchers nowadays only care where are they going to get their next funding check then when the moneys gone the truth comes out (Pic is the truth, The left will go out of their way to force debate on topic even if it means by force ,lying or trying to harm kids "school shooting and never attacking the big pharmacy issues" >christianforums.com/threads/studies-find-liberals-lie-cheat-steal-more-than-conservatives.7245849/ This next article is a example of Indoctrination in our colleges >insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/27/study-finds-those-graduate-education-are-far-more-liberal-peers More info that even me being on the right makes you want to wait for all the paper's to come out. Wait till the money dries up..... before we rush in >iahymnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/new-study-shows-liberals-have-a-lower-average-iq-than-conservatives/

top kek
>Obviously the categories aren't exclusive - you'll find woke midwits and libshit geniuses, but they generally hold.

>tfw a midwit shows up to prove your point almost immediately

Source? Why do you think that most scientists and academics have IQs greater than 140? The average college professor has an IQ of between 115 and 125, it would make sense that they were more liberal as they're more likely to be in the midwit category. Social science and the humanities tend to have lower IQs on average than the hard sciences, and the hard sciences (surprise) are more conservative than the soft sciences. Furthermore, academia is a closed system subject to different pressures than society at large, and I'm talking about society at large.

Like I said, liberalism only appeals to 110 IQ brainlets.

t. 135 conservative here, former liberal before i wised up. fight me.

>journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

This. Stevan Pinker even mentioned this in his show.

This study is bullshit. Look at the average IQ of California. It's very well under 106

I have an IQ somewhere between 85 and 90, and I've always been pretty anti SJW. Now once I found out about this cesspool it turned me full fledged nazi

>source needed
>oh wait
Hahahahaha! Riiight the people that think "wolfkin" is a real identity are reallllllly smart. I'm sure these "IQ studies"are about as balanced as the "Hillary has a 90% chance of winning" polls.


You people are a joke.

Folks, you are forgetting an important factor: This is based on how people self-identify. MInorities overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and they are more likely to describe themselves simply by party or perceived side. The word "liberal" has had a stigma attached to it for years; however, over the past 15 years the amount of Democrats describing themselves as liberals has increased 20%. That change comes from younger, college educated, white Democrats. Of you take black Americans for example, they generally hold what the most of the left would consider regressive and "problematic' social views concerning sex and gender, and they are far more likely to describe themselves as "very religious" and belong to a fundamentalist church. For these reasons they have a tendency to shy away from the word "liberal." When you hear "conservative Democrat," these day it is not an old white person who is too stubborn to switch parties . . . they have almost all died out . . . it's usually black people. Older black people still work with the stigma attached to the word "liberal," the same as old white people, whereas young black people, particularly ones lacking in education who "hate faggots" and "wanna make that paper," will avoid the word all together. They might be in favor of leftist social programs that benefit them or their community, but they are correct in not asserting that they are liberals.

Ancap is lolberg-tier and absolutely bulletworthy

So given that, even though more than 90% of blacks vote Democrat, out of the ones who even vote, most of them will not self-identify as liberals. Maybe look at the statistics from other countries with a lower minority population and see how intelligence correlates between liberal and conservative.

>smart people pretend to fit the current political agenda to get ahead

wow

Lol

This guy has the highest IQ in the world by the way.
...and he's an authoritarian technocrat.

I can get into that, people who go to university and college mostly are liberal. Doesn't mean they are right. Conservatives are mostly woodcutters, construction workers...

...I mean, it's pretty self evident that someone who has a low IQ and low education would reject progressive thinking and new ideas and stick to tradition and whatever the people around them believe.

You don't really need science for that....

wonderful.

Pretending and lying to oneself are two different things. So is believing you are something you are not. People who participate in these anonymous surveys have no incentive to lie, and if they have to pretend to get ahead, when presented with such an opportunity as an anonymous poll, or on a place like Sup Forums, they will express their real beliefs.

The thing is, your argument falls flat if you examine similar surveys from the past. Even when liberalism had a greater stigma attached to it and was unfavorable, similar results suggesting liberals had a higher intelligence were produced. People have been bitching about this and trying to justify it since the 1960s.

My parents are rather liberal, and I am a technocrat. I do consider myself smarter than my parents.

Given what we know about genetics and intelligence, it is highly unlikely you are significantly more intelligent than both of your parents. In fact, if one is significantly more intelligent than the other, you likely favor the less intelligence one. Perhaps you need to grow up and appreciate your parents more.

Technocrats are smarter than liberals, and use useful liberal idiots to advance their agenda.
If liberals have slightly above average IQ, technocrats are often several standard deviations above the mean.

It's not. Liberals are sub-80 IQ scum.

>this guy is smart and right wing so you're arguments is wrong

...

Its because intellectuals are normally over socialised

Both of my parents are in the gifted range.
And IQ is not entirely genetic - half of it is fluid intelligence, which increases as one learns and practices more.

I'm in the genius range in inherented intelligence, but my fluid intelligence is even greater in relation to my fluid intelligence.

IQ is outdated by the way. Modern researchers use a wide range of cognitive subtests and physiological tests which are diverse. It isn't like I consider you to be inferior because you have a lower IQ than me / aren't a technocrat.

>progressive thinking

Where would we be without it?

Pic related

>how to justify being a racist piece of shit

OK, I've been out of school for a while, and the meanings of these words differ from generation, from continental Europe, to Britain, and to the States. I always held an unfavorable view of technocrats as autists who were nearly as bad as the postmodern critical theorists who inappropriately and incorrectly interpreted and misapplied scientific theories and methodologies to the social sciences.

Perhaps they are teaching you kids something different in school these days, but in the early days, they were the hard science version of the social science SJW. Plus, it comes from the continent, and everything bad comes from outside the Anglosphere.

You would still be flinging shit at your sister because fuck that one monkey who thinks he's smarter than all of us and fuck his stick. Who needs sticks, we were better off in the old days when there were no sticks and people actually talked to each other.

PS: most of the very elite think tanks and strategy making corporations are technocrat-leaning. To us technocrats, you liberals look like mere pawns. You are easy to move and manipulate to serve a particular agenda - you can be controlled easily and made to adopt any prejudice easily.

That being said, while liberals are useful, conservatives are outright malignant sometimes.

Know your place.

My bachelor's was in History and Political Science; my master's was in History, and I received a Juris Doctor in law. I did study civil law, which is continental, but I received more than adequate training in common law.

Gonna call bullshit.

Social sciences have been destroyed by marxism.

One of the prevailing ideologies of the left is that bias of any form - simple cognitive ability - simple recognition of differences - is bad.

They likewise refuse to deal with any logical expression whatsoever.

Which is why they end up making bullshit articles about even more bullshit studies to try and seem like they have half a brain.

I'm sorry, but anyone believing this bullshit is probably beyond help.

lol same IQ as me. Exact.

Liberals are also meant to be higher in trait "Openness". Which I find to be the opposite of the case.
I've so far had 4 very right wing conservative friends test their personalities and all scored in the high 80th and 90th percentiles for openness.
Admittedly I've only had one leftie friend test their personality, but they ended up being more or less average in openness.

Very strange. The modern day left seems to be to be incredibly close minded. Makes sense because to reject the mainstream, which is left wing, you'd need to be relatively open minded and intelligent.

This is all a smidge hard to get one's head around.

That's cool of you to larp as if you are in a position of power and manipulate liberals in some Machiavellian manner, but explain to me how this term has changed in the 15 years since I had a poli sci class, and how they aren't just autistic bureaucrats who masturbate to the works of Weber.

A case for the rule of the skilled ones (technocracy) instead of a democracy (the rule of an average person) has been around since Plato wrote The Republic.

What have you been smoking?

By neo-Marxism. It is a perverted and corrupted version of classical Marxism, which rejects the fundamental principle of dialectical materialism.

No shit, but it's been greatly expounded upon since antiquity. Did you take a sophomore level poli sci and read the Republic?

Aren't most non-white people conservative?

I hate to agree with the postmodern cultural relativists, but it depends on whether you are comparing all within one specific culture or relative to their own culture.

>humanities guy thinking he understands science

There's no basis for anything at all when it comes to humanities. Look up Munchausen's Trilemma.

You were basically indocrinated into a bunch of automatisms produced by the limbic system and take them as being more objective than other people's automatisms.

Technocrats understand this, and instead of askimg what's "objective", they ask what's good for the society, and what the best way is for it to be governed.

Also, pic related. High ranking Apparatchik family of philosophers, scientists and artists.

I mean, as in if you compare the minorities in America (which is I assume the location in question) they will be conservative moreso than white people.

Nuremberg trials alone prove this wrong. And if magnets to your head makes you have liberal views, it speaks for itself that these people, if anything, are brain damaged. Congratulations for making 4 posts tho with faggotry that came out of your head, how about you have something to back your thinking so you don't sound like a pseudo-intellectual shitstain? Or better yet, fuck off back to plebbit or kill yourself.

Liberals have high IQ but conservatives are more intelligent.

Comparable to western, liberal democracies, then non-white people living outside of such countries would for all intents and purposes mostly be conservative, comparatively. Non-whites living within predominantly-white countries of aforementioned status have a tendency to side politically with liberals as it affords them more protections as a minority. People look out for their own self-interests.

The loudest and most obnoxious social justice whites come from upper-middle and upper class families where they never have and never will have a worry in the world about their own well being. They are oblivious to the struggles of a working person or even the value of a dollar. They can feel empathy with no amount of self-preservation. Why do you think all of the Hollywood elites are social justice liberals? They can afford to be.