Applied Psychology

IQ is bullshit propaganda, fuck the nazi term

This study is weird.

First the definitions of liberal and socialism are suspect. "Equivalence of outcome"? What socialist believes that everyone should be the exact same? Thats the opposite of socialism that's what dumb conservatives say it is, but thats not what it is.

Liberalism is the belief in acceptance and human rights come from private property. I know thats not how a lot of liberals consider themselves, more and more liberals are witnessing the eradication of human rights so that the capitalist class can own everything, and want to keep the human rights without the oppression and hate that comes with capitalist exploitation. But essentially the ideal liberal society is like a super-social democracy, and looking at a lot of European social democracies, the citizens dont really know or care how they get it.

Centrism is considered the most nuanced view. This is ridiculous. Being apolitical is not nuance, it is ignorance. I get a lot of people dont want to engage with politics all the time, I get it. I engage with politics all the time and I dont really want to either. Another personal preference would be that I dont want to use calendars. But not using calendars doesn't give me a more nuanced concept of time management. I have to engage with it if I wanna get things done. If anything, people who have a deep practical knowledge of politics have a more nuanced views, even conservatives. As a leftist I have read history books written by some conservatives, and while I usually disagree with their conclusions, they can provide great and unique insights into what actually happened, from which I can make my own conclusions. On the other end, I find leftists who are politically active are extremely concerned with facts and nuance, and actively resist steering a narrative toward this or that predetermined conclusion.

Deeper understanding of actual conditions leads to better ability to affect change. Spinning every event or phenomena into polemical basis to support my own position may be a sign of intelligence itself since rhetoric is like its own skill, even talent. But regardless, this is sectarianism and sectarianism is not a viable political strategy for engaging with the masses. Most leftists will argue with you of you call them sectarian, even if they plainly are. So almost no one is going to cop to being radical for the sake of being radical, most radicals consider them selves kind of left-moderates with people to their right and left. Ironically, the people who do consider themselves radical are usually closer to a moderate position, either favoring radical-liberal blanquism and adventurism, or state bureaucracy over radical liberation.

Also IQ is racist, better ask somebody

No wonder scientists can't crack the connection between intelligence and politics, if this is the standard research. In my experience, politics has more to do with emotion, empathy, and principles than intelligence. Intelligent people can be totally out for themselves, or committed to helping others, and usually some kind of blend since structural systems in society are concrete; and influence, resist or enable individual effort.

Up here in Canada there used to be a thing called "Progressive Conservatives". Fiscally Conservative, but socially fairly liberal. "We need to keep spending down, etc... but we still need to build hospitals, maintain healthcare, etc..."

The modern hard-C Conservative party drove them out because a hard-right, Alberta asshole with nothing more than a bachelor of Arts, named Preston fucking Manning merged his "reform" party with the Progressive Conservatives and steered them hard into the "let's give all the money to the oil and gas sector and let them trickle it down to the peasants as they see fit."

Ironically, the Progressive Conservatives that didn't like that, basically all went to the Liberals, who shifted a little bit more to the centre as a result.

I'm assuming that other countries must have a similar group of "progressive" conservatives of some ilk. Ones that are educated and intelligent enough to have empathy, but skew conservative fiscally.

Education, intelligence, and empathy all go hand in hand. This is why conservative areas intentionally cut school funding and consolidate the money into conservative institutions.

No matter even when its somewhat useful like this I still support challenging and throwing out IQ all together as any kind of useful metric.

You have to be stupid to be conservative.

Cruelty = Bad is apparently an equation over 40% of Americans can comprehend.

Explains why John Fetterman became conservative after the stroke. Brain damage turns you into conservatives.

Not a fan of IQ as a measure, but it's hard to quantify intelligence for studies.

TLDR:

The researchers then analyzed the four specific dimensions of the detailed questionnaire. For economic libertarianism, socialism, and liberalism, the analysis again showed no statistical difference between the groups. Giftedness did not appear to push individuals toward or away from these specific ideologies.

However, a distinct pattern emerged regarding the dimension of conservatism. The researchers found an interaction effect between giftedness and sex. This means the relationship between intelligence and conservatism depended on whether the participant was male or female.

Specifically, non-gifted men scored higher on conservatism than gifted men. The non-gifted men were more likely to endorse values related to tradition and strict social order. Gifted men were less likely to hold these traditional conservative views.

This difference was not observed among the women in the study. Gifted women and non-gifted women showed similar levels of conservatism. The divergence was unique to the male participants.

Most of the world's biggest intellectuals were socialists.

One of the only things I ever got a trophy for was coming in third place as a third grader in the entire elementary school, K-6, in the first annual chess tournament they ever gave.

I learned how to play chess from my mom a few days after they announced that in a few weeks they were going to be having a chess tournament.

I'm not very good at chess compared to a computer, but when I'm playing people, I win far more often than I do not, so I'm not bad at it either, but the only thing that I had going for me is that when I would play, I would think about what I did allowed my opponent to do.

Technically, I did not lose a single game until I had played everyone, but the last two games ended in stalemates, and the judges didn't know that you don't decide the winner of a stalemate by the number of pieces on the board.

At the time, I didn't either, so for a brief moment, I thought I was first place. The only reason I didn't get first place was that with the other top three chess players having had the opportunity to play me once, they were able to beat me on the second go round.

Needless to say, my school was in a fairly rural, south-eastern location, and it's not exactly like they "promulgated excellence in education" or anything fancy like that. Most people there turned every single syllable word into a two or three syllable word just by their pronunciation.

I said all of that to say, in support of the conversation at hand, that having the ability to think about the consequences of your actions, to logically look at the board that is laid down at you, and what can happen because of what you choose to do, is one of the default characteristics of high IQ people.

And when you think about the consequences of policies such as:

Murdering women for having an abortion.

Criminalizing the use of birth control.

Assembling a team of shittroopers to hunt down legal immigrants and imprison them and then throw them out of the country without due process.

Allowing those same shit troopers to murder your own citizens in broad daylight on camera and go unpunished.

Failing to punish felons for their crimes and instead appointing them to the highest office in the country.

Looking the other way as that same felon gives kickbacks and tax breaks to his already absurdly ultra-rich buddies just for the funsies.

And so many more things that no single post can fairly describe them, then it becomes incredibly difficult to be even a moderately moral person and vote conservative.

I say that it is practically impossible to be anything like a moral person and vote for conservatism when you have the intelligence to see what conservatism stands for.

The grand majority of these people are what you call single issue voters, and that's because a single issue voter is too stupid to actually think about the issues.

Their thinking can barely handle anything more than, "immigrants = bad, trans = bad, abortion = bad, woke = bad".

They do not stand a chance against the propaganda machine that they paid $1400 for at the Apple Store, telling them what to think and making their conclusions for them and parroting what the computer told them to say.

I know I am also vulnerable to propaganda. I am not trying to prop up the other side. I am just saying that conservatism has, by and large, always been the party of making the rich white people richer and whiter, and the only reason why the grand majority of people support them is either because they hope to one day be the richer, whiter person or they have been conned by the rich white people.

And although you can easily fool smart people, smart people tend to be more likely to see through the con.