Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences

Originally posted by moocowman
Neither am I but if I need to make a decision I'll go for the greater evidence, the evidence in relation to leading up to the big bang is mounting and does not require a god, as for before the big bang then time will tell.

Ah, but we don't know that ! Not until we find out everything about the universes origins and how and why all these combinations of chemicals exist.
I have looked at some of the scientific theories involved including the big bang, and it appears to me that itdoes not require chance, consequently I do not believe in chance ( not that I've ruled it out ).

Originally posted by moocowmanThe evidence for the god has not been presented, well apart from ancient scriptures an hearsay.

If someone presents a case for fairies creating the universe then the evidenced must be weighed but first you have to prove the fairies are real just like god.

And what is the evidence for chance/accident causing and being responsible for everything to exist ?

I do not put much faith in the ability of humans to measure human, or even animal intelligence for that matter. Can anyone honestly say that they are smarter, more intelligent than another based upon some test? Or even personal interaction.
How can you EVER know?
How would you know if someone is MORE intelligent than you, as opposed to more dedicated to a particular subject?
Who is to say that the writers of the IQ tests are the smartest ones? Don't they HAVE to be? How can you write a test for someone with more intelligence than you?
Aren't you just measuring "problem-solving"? If so, what does a day dreamer care about problem solving when they are building castles in their mind with fair maidens that look a lot like the blonde girl you have had a crush on since fifth grade?
How do you measure "insight"...
What about turf? Everyone has their turf, their base where they are comfortable. If someone can make you question your own intelligence, are they more intelligent? If you graduated at the top of your class at Princeton, but some slick high school dropout salesman sells you a timeshare that you will never use, who is more intelligent?

Liberal. Conservative. Those words mean so many different things to different people. Those words, for political reasons, MUST be discarded as a trait defining intelligence. They have absolutely no bearing.

Of course, I will defer to the more intelligent among us.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I don't doubt that helping your tribe is in line with evolution. But the way they are talking about looking after many people is contrary to evolution. I'm sorry but I'm right. Due to our need for resources we go to war with those that are in possession or block those resources. It would be a utopia if all these intelligent people cared for everyone and we all looked after one another.

Case and point, we needed Iraq not to switch to the petroEuro so we invaded them so that a resource would not become scarce. If we allowed one to do it others would follow suit. We are a social species and I will not argue that if we see someone who means little to us, compared to someone threatening our advancement we are more likely to help the first individual. Yes exceptions exist.

If we were to have say a Nuclear holocaust a la Jericho I believe it portrayed a rather real depiction of what to expect. The community would probably come to together and be strong in a town of 3000 or less. However as resources became more scarce and skilled labor will be needed tensions will rise.

Even now in these trying times the so called caring for the masses like some deranged Jesus is still contrary to evolutionary patterns, of species fighting for scarce resources. We have come to think of money as a resource, and a highly intelligent homeless man will have no sympathy for the plight of those he passes up for a job, at least at the moment.

To say because you believe in this or fell that you are more intelligent, this smacks of rewritten religious propaganda to suit the liberal agenda. Instead of This person is unclean, a savage or some other horrible word it is, you have an unenlightened, unintelligent point of view.

Regardless of what you believe humans are animals and we are mean animals. If you are not in our specific tribe, in hard, lean times you are likely to be killed for your belongings. This is not unintelligent behavior it is survival behavior brought on by our instincts from Evolution. Yes while peaceful and prosperous time we are sated by being full, and having entertainment. Yet our primal barbarism come out all the time.

Does anybody see the problem with this study? There are many methods for measuring intelligence and all of them have their pros and cons. There's no proper method for measuring intelligence because it differs so much via culture. Intelligence differs greatly from intelligence in nomad societies for example (logic being a factor of intelligence that differs greatly.) Not to mention the conflicting views and theories of intelligence from many psychologists. (Spearman, Sternberg, Gardener, Stanford-Binet Scale (IQ) etc. )

This is a study with some flaws (like most studies.)

Not to mention they don't mention their experimental or controlled group. They're most likely university students.

Much bias.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Jaegernaut]

"The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be...unnatural." ―Some character from one of the Star Wars movies.

"The brain is the most erotic human organ." -Dr. Timothy Leary

reply to post by constantwonder


Sorry but this reads like just another study meant to glorify the tendencies and positions the study maker likes. You know, the classic "only smart people are like me" BS.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by constantwonder


Things I learnt from this post by author Kanazawa.

1. Kanazawa thinks he is intelligent
2. Kanazawa is atheist.
3. obviously he believes in Darwin's evolution so he goes about second guessing everything around him through that paradigm.

Originally posted by constantwonder

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals.

This is not logical.

evolutionarily conservative and being liberal? Oxymoron. Moderate in seeing both sides? Maybe.

The progressive "intelligentsia" has always made itself out to be more than anyone else. Self importance is intrinsic to its continuity.

They have to BS themselves to the point that they believe their BS so that they can BS us!

The "intelligent" athiest thing just doesnt jive with me. IF they said "Non religious" that would work. You can be highly spiritual and still not religious. Religion is just a man made method to understand the "divine" and CONTROL THEM! A wise man needs no law. He has innate understanding of right and wrong and seeks TRUTH!

Ahm... No, evolution is devolution and real religion is being in touch with truth, spirit and reality. People are easily lead by "Ideas" and mistake them for reality, nature and truth. Intellect is not worth much as demonstrated by this philosophy about intelligence.

A fascinating read for sure. I know some would say that "well this proves Liberals are smarter than Conservatives" from reading this, but all in all I think it also matters how one would define certain ideologies in relation to the context as a whole.

I would say education in general, combined with higher intelligence would lead to a more open minded approach, or to see things rationally (which is why many intelligent people end up atheist, agnostic, or rebel against Dogmatic Religions). But there is where I see the relation to Liberal/Conservative and intelligence breaking off. The Social Conservative is closed minded, accepts only that which they are brought up to revere as social norms. The same can be said for Social Liberals as well, two Liberal parents raising children, their children are likely to parrot their parents beliefs. However economically speaking, and personal rights issues would imo not be defined by intelligence, as both schools of thought follow ideological theory, and not factual information, or even information brought forth by superstition, emotion or parental upbringing.

The greater divides of Liberal and Conservatism in terms of economics and political intervention transcends the boundaries of intelligence, as neither has been proven correct or incorrect.. far different than saying intelligent people are more likely to say, believe in evolution (which I agree).

reply to post by Jaegernaut


I have to agree with you. One of the other problems is humans tend to "compartmentalize" their intelligence so to speak. Even Einstien only had knowledge of certain areas. While that might be useful in some respects it ultimately will not ensure survival. The man couldn't even grasp that he should brush his hair. He couldn't tie he shoes. His personal life was rife with problems because he couldn't fathom responsibility in relationships. Intelligence isn't of much use if one cannot function in society. Much of one's success in life is dependent on how well they can function in social networks.

People also forget that Intelligence is also subject to the law of diminishing returns. The more extreme ends of the "bell curve" tend to manifest some issues. There are a few studies showing people on the higher end of the IQ scale tend to manifest "Schizophrenia" traits. One very famous example being the "Unibomber", Ted Kaczynski . Really bright guy, read his stuff. It didn't serve any good purpose in the end though. Timothy McVeigh also scored pretty high when he was tested. From all accounts he was obsessed with Rambo and other action flicks and eventually lived them out in a way. On a more personal note, I actually do qualify to join Mensa, took their test when I was 19 at the urging of one of my professors at the time. I never did join. I don't see the point. Another one who tested came to be friends with me. He joined because his father was a member. The guy is kinda useless. He has three degrees now and still can't hold down a job, can't pay his bills, some days I question if he can feed himself. I do love him but he's not walking a good road, no amount of IQ points is going to fix that. In the end the tool means nothing if you have no desire to use it.

I take this whole study with a grain of salt. It seems like he wanted an "atta boy" for himself. Another big problem I have with "intelligence studies" is this: We can't even define stupidity yet. Until you can define what the bottom is then you can't be certain of the top either. There are also other variables with the biggest being emotion.


[edit on 25-2-2010 by antonia]

[edit on 25-2-2010 by antonia]

Originally posted by dreamseeker
I think way outside of the box. In fact so many of my concepts are not even understood by therapist.

Beyound Sigmund even. A Jungian nightmare.

Fight the good fight.

reply to post by antonia


How does one measure an subjective intangable? Much less agree upon a top or bottom of the "scale"?

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


I'd happen to agree with you on that point. I don't think you ever can because humans tend to value different attributes. I sing classical music in the context of my college course and sometimes do it outside of the academic theater in classical performance. These are mostly church settings. Being "intelligent" is of some benefit, but having a good ear and memory is even better than being able to process information quickly. These qualities are exclusive of intelligence as measured on most tests. There is also the problem of confidence. IQ points don't solve those issues.

I chalk it up to humans feeling the need to label each other in order to effectively deal with each other.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by antonia]

[edit on 25-2-2010 by antonia]

reply to post by antonia


I'd argue our need to "label" every damn thing usually with a minimal amount of consideration is stupidity. But that is just tangimental commentary. Sorry.

What exactly do they define as intelligence?

This is a problem because there are multitudes of various intelligences. One may be socially intelligent but not logically intelligent. One may be great with numbers but horrible with verbal or spacial relationships. Great with music, horrible with math.

Motivation is also important because without a motivational intelligence an otherwise intelligent person will not have the inner strength to pursue more knowledge.

Measuring intelligence is difficult and there are many variables that the tests just don't account for, and hence why I think this study if flawed. I agree with the OP that agnosticism shows more intelligence than atheism, but some of the most highly regarded intelligent people in the world had some form of religion Isaac Newton, Galileo, Da Vinci, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Einstein, etc.

Liberalism though I agree takes a strong mind, but also note that the Liberalism outlined in the article is flawed because an intelligent person would note that the people it can trust most are it's family and close friends, not the complete stranger 1000 miles away. Is that just paranoia or just plain common sense?

I agree with the Articles original statement that Intelligent people stray from the norm in most cases but the study as outlined in the article seems flawed and perhaps even carries a bias.

The original post...

Ummm, no, belief in God doesn't show that one is less intelligent. Atheists aren't necessarily more intelligent. How are they judging intelligence in the first place? A battery of tests? And of what kind?

I believe in a creator, and I would like to think of myself as fairly rational.

To the contrary, atheism would seem to be more fitting of someone not quite aware as they could be, no offense. I've been there. I used to be more in support of atheism years ago. One of my big arguments for atheism was how could a god let suffering continue? The truth is, god is pretty much everything, the good and the evil, the right and the wrong. If you want to know who or what god is, then you need to find out exactly what "you" are, and I think that will get you closer to the truth.

As I learned more about myself, atheism just doesn't make any real sense. It seems to explain "existence" as some kind of accident or something. Having a creator/creative force is the best explanation thus far as to why anything "is." Any other explanation for "existence" becomes ridiculously complex, and more unlikely to be the truth; the likelihood just doesn't mathematically make any sense; it's horribly improbable.

Anyway folks, off my soap box, so I exit this thread.

Peace,

Troy

"In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals".

Even allowing this argument its points on evolution there is no connection here with intelligence. The foundation doesnt even beginn to justify the conclusion. He has to create a straw man and then tare it down, the knuckle dragger.

This is know as BS.

Worse the writer is being dishonest. He is basical saying that conservatives are traped in a genetic vacum, poor things cant help their knuckle dragging.

And that liberals are genetic modification thus smarter and more caring natural advanced and enlightened.

This guy is a misleading propagandist quack imho. He is getting close to sounding like a Nazi of sorts.

Some of you young folk pay attention to this sort of writing and study it well see it for what it is. Its political propaganda.

Oh, great. Now the militant Atheists will quote this article as proof that they are somehow "more intelligent" than Theists. More fuel to the religous debate ****storm.

Anyways, so believing in a God is natural and evolutionary? Wouldn't it be the other way around (since I highly doubt that animals believe in any God)? Besides, the author only cares about "Liberal VS. Conservative". He fails to mention anything in between. In other words, he sees everything in black and white.

I would guess that the author is a liberal Atheist, with a wife that cheated on him, hence the mention of polygamy and monogamy in women.

reply to post by Unown



Well he said basically that God holders are less advanced more run of the mill type apes.