He Thinks He Nose

Are Liberals More Intelligent than Conservatives?

Maybe they just think they are. At least the writer of this article in Psychology Today thinks as much. Satoshi Kanazawa is an “evolutionary” psychologist.

First, he defines liberalism.

“ . . . one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary U.S. as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others. In the modern political and economic context, this willingness usually translates into paying higher proportions of individual incomes in taxes toward the government and its social welfare programs."

Let me see if I understand what he is saying . . . liberals are willing to let the government tax them MORE, and they TRUST this bigger government to be benevolent and fair, to use those resources efficiently, and not waste them nor divert them for political motivation.

And he thinks that makes them smarter than conservatives? *Snort* It would by funny if it weren’t so sad . . . and damaging.

Here’s my impression of “evolutionary psychology” . . . it’s little more a pseudo-science, or junk science even. Here’s another opinion about it from Psychology Today:

"While Evolutionary Psychology offers a valuable way of thinking about psychological development and life in the prehistoric environments, many of the most prominent voices in the field are less scientists than political philosophers. They choose some aspect of modern life and construct elaborate justifications located in an inaccessible ancient environment. Often, the fact that their story seems to make sense is the only evidence they offer. For them, it may be enough, but it isn't enough if you're aspiring to be taken seriously as a science."

Translation: the evolutionary psychologist is little more than the Rudyard Kipling of human behavior. Mr. Kanazawa might as well have been sitting with his laptop by the banks of the great gray-green greasy Limpopo River.

Secondly, in his article he admits:

"The fact that conservatives have been shown to give MORE money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with [my hypothesis]; in fact, it supports the prediction. Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations. . . . In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit.”

Precisely my point! “Citizens” have no control over their “charitable contributions” (taxes).

Another liberal conundrum . . . most liberals say that the government shouldn’t “enforce morality.” The act of charitable giving is a clear moral choice. My hubby and I give thousands of dollars every year to multiple charities. Yet that’s not good enough for Big Government . . . they want to enforce THEIR version of charitable morality by taking even more of our money and giving it to the “charity” of their choice. Or to for Cash for Clunkers, Property for Pimps, Tunnels for Turtles, or any number of nebulous, nefarious, non-profits..

Vice President Joe Biden gave an average of $369 to charities in the decade leading up to his nomination. Most people feel that others think like themselves. Maybe Mr. Biden thinks the only way to make people “be charitable” is to tax them more.

Conservatives are more giving, but less trusting (of big government). Research the Social Security “Trust Fund” to find out what it means to “trust” the government with your “charity” dollars for the elderly.

Mr. Kanazawa’s blog is a riff on his one of his pet theories “The Savanna Principle” which states that the human brain has difficulty comprehending and dealing with entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment. (Is he speaking of “change” here?)

"Thus the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis (The Hypothesis) suggests that less intelligent individuals have greater difficulty than more intelligent people with comprehending and dealing with evolutionarily novel entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment. In contrast, general intelligence does not affect individuals’ ability to comprehend and deal with evolutionarily familiar entities and situations that existed in the ancestral environment."

Perhaps conservatives have are more attuned to history and economics. It’s not being afraid of change or progress or not understanding it, but rather being aware of how certain principles and ideologies have led to human suffering. When we see “change” headed down a different path (not a new one) . . . where does the slippery slope hit the precipice?

Mr. Kanazawa also says:

"Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions. The Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints. Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions. They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life."

Notice this point, “Liberals do control . . . apart from a few areas in life such as business.” Is he saying that people in business are less intelligent? Think about that for a minute. Business is the engine of our economy . . . and that’s one area that liberals do NOT control. Perhaps they are not smart enough to go into business, so instead they go into media to report on other people, or into show business and pretend to be other people. As for academia . . . you’ve heard the expression “Those that can . . . do . . . and those that can’t . . . teach.* Not being smart enough to run a business doesn’t keep liberals from tying to control other people’s business!

*A generalization, I know, but we’ve all heard it. Of course there are fine academicians who could or did succeed elsewhere, but discovered a love of teaching.

Since conservatives are better at business, we know the effects of ill-conceived policies on the engine of the economy.

Conservatives may resent higher taxes for another reason. Conservatives tend to have more children than Liberals. Producing productive progeny is an pricey proposition (refer to my first blog.) It’s easier to be more “generous” (with taxation) when you have more disposable income.

Here’s an article from the Wall Street Journal about self-described liberals vs. conservatives and the “Fertility Gap” of 41%.

Here’s a blog by “HalfSigma” that seeks to refute the WSJ article. It reports on the fertility of Democrats vs. Republicans, and it shows that the Dems are more reproductive because they have more poor, blacks and Hispanics, who tend to have more babies. Although, when you select for “religious conservatives” the scale tips the back. Then his last comment says, “The trend in the United States is that poor, religious, and stupid people are having more children . . . “ Wait, didn’t he just say that it’s the Democrats having more children? Is he calling them stupid? I’m not sure that’s the “take-away” that HalfSigma wants us to have.

Perhaps because liberals control academic institutions . . . and the more intelligent students are more likely to go to colleges and universities . . . they get brain-washed into being liberals while in the tutelage of the liberals in control, and that may be how we end up with lots of intelligent liberals. This argument is as logical as “once upon a time on the Savanna . . . “

And that, O Best Beloved, is how the elephant got his nose out of joint . . . from this kind of croc!
___________________________________
Thank you to my sweet liberal friends for showing this link to me. They disagreed with Mr. Kanazawa, too, but encouraged me to write about it anyway.

Image from here.