Libertarians and conservatives which are dumber?

5.1. Differences in ability
[Are conservatives simply less intelligent than liberals, and less able to obtain PhDs and faculty positions?] The evidence does not support this view… [published studies are mixed. Part of the complexity is that…] Social conservatism correlates with lower cognitive ability test scores, but economic conservatism correlates with higher scores (Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012; Kemmelmeier 2008). [Libertarians are the political group with the highest Autism Level, yet they are underrepresented in the social sciences other than economics]
heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/

Although Rinderman et al. found that more intelligent people tended to support more moderate views, an American study found the opposite effect. Kemmelmeier (2008) surveyed college students who scored above average in academic achievement tests (e.g. SAT and ACT) and found two trends. There was a linear trend for more intelligent students to be less conservative overall, in line with Stankov’s findings. Additionally, there was a non-linear trend[1] for the most intelligent students to support more extreme (i.e. left or right-wing) political views as opposed to more moderate ones, contrary to the findings of Rinderman et al. Political views in this study were measured by first asking people how liberal vs. conservative they were, and additionally asking about their views on more specific issues referred to as “traditional gender roles” and “anti-regulation” attitudes. Participants’ views on the former issues (e.g. gay marriage and abortion) were more strongly associated with their overall conservatism than their views on government regulation (e.g. gun control, higher taxes for the wealthy, speech codes on campus). Interestingly, higher intelligence was associated with less conservative views on traditional gender roles on the one hand, but more “conservative” views opposing government regulation. This suggests that more intelligent people in this study tended to support both greater personal freedom and less government regulation in general (libertarians take note). This finding is similar to a previous finding that higher education was associated with greater support for liberal social policies but not with support for greater economic regulation (Gerber, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, & Ha, 2010).
psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201305/intelligence-and-politics-have-complex-relationship

WELL WELL WELL LEFTYPOL, how fucked are we?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_intuitionism
mankindquarterly.org/archive/paper.php?p=647
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing–systemizing_theory
ijr.com/2015/03/276715-difference-liberals-conservatives-demonstrated-one-simple-powerful-story/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

libertarians are dumber by far, at least conservative policy just werks enough to maintain some semblance of a society

What the fuck do I do with this feel, leftypol?

Troll Holla Forums with it. They believe in intelligence.

Even high intelligence has its drawbacks, aka "clever-sillies".

I mean if libertarians of all political groupings have the highest intelligence I think it's a pretty good indication that maybe "intelligence" isn't the be-all end-all of human existence

I was walkin' through the city streets
And a man walks up to me and hands me the latest socialized health insurance plan
"Run faster, jump higher, live healthier"
Man, I'm not gonna let you poison me
I threw it on the ground
You must think I'm a joke
I ain't gonna be part of your system
Man! Pump that collectivist garbage in another man's veins
youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ

I go to my favorite hot dog stand
And the dude says, "You come here all the time! Here's one for free."
I said, "Man! What do I look like? A charity case?"
I took it and threw it on the ground!
I don't need your handouts!
I'm a libertarian!
Please!
You can't buy me hot dog, man!

WELP!

So once AI super intelligence is invented and enslaves us all, it will most likely be libertarian?

Huh, well that explains why I tend to lose debates with libertarians.

lmao at believing any of this. i've met soc libs who were tards and soc cons who wetr
prodigies. your ideology says little of your intelligence. plenty of frog posters are

This is pretty intuitive actually. The economic arguments I see espoused against government intervention are usually better developed than those who are pro-intervention. That's not to say that they are ultimately correct, but in the economics profession currently there is a trend towards market fundamentalism which means more intelligent people who are more versed in (at least neo-classical) economics will trend towards this view. However it's obvious that social conservatism is on its way out, and for the better.

The argument that actions of individuals that are self-regarding, or do not cause harm to others (or at least have their consent), should be allowed without government involvement is incredibly difficult to refute.

The problem is that even though Neo-classical economics is adhered to by many very intelligent people, it is fundamentally flawed in plethora of ways. Ask any post-keynesian. This means, in my opinion, that over the next half century, social conservatism will likely become an extremely fringe view, while the political debates shift towards the pros and cons of different types of economic intervention by governments.

So libertarians are the least caring and most analytical, which is very useful for solving complex social problems. Caring feelings (empathizing with the working class) doesn't solve problems.

You might find tha this actually has a name "moral dumbfounding."
In moral psychology, social intuitionism is a model that proposes that moral positions and judgments are: (1) primarily intuitive ("intuitions come first"), (2) rationalized, justified, or otherwise explained after the fact
Jonathan Haidt (2001) de-emphasizes the role of reasoning in reaching moral conclusions. Haidt asserts that moral judgment is primarily given rise to by intuition, with reasoning playing a smaller role in most of our moral decision-making. Conscious thought-processes serve as a kind of post hoc justification of our decisions.
His main evidence comes from studies of "moral dumbfounding" where people have strong moral reactions but fail to establish any kind of rational principle to explain their reaction.[3] An example situation in which moral intuitions are activated is as follows: Imagine that a brother and sister sleep together once. No one else knows, no harm befalls either one, and both feel it brought them closer as siblings. Most people imagining this incest scenario have very strong negative reaction, yet cannot explain why.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_intuitionism

I disagree. Populations are getting dumber (when you import people from Muslim countries), so social conservatism will become popular (via sharia law).
mankindquarterly.org/archive/paper.php?p=647

Very interesting. It doesn't surprise me that this phenomenon has a name because it's so common and so obvious when it happens. It bolsters my view that most moral arguments have their roots in our ability to empathise with other human beings (or non-human animals), which would explain why racists must dehumanize their victims in order to suppress their feelings of empathy towards them. I often notice that my strongest moral positions are usually arrived at through a process of rationalising an initial visceral intuition I have towards something rather than a cold and calculated approach that only uses rationality as the basis for morality.

This might also explain why so many fascists, and anarcho-capitalists have such repugnant views but can hide behind a facade of "subjective morality". They are often autists or sociopaths who struggle to empathise with others and so cannot be convinced of a widely accepted moral standard even when faced with the best arguments for such standards.

I think this could largely be explained by the anti-education sentiment present in devout muslims. Eye Queue is very largely influenced by education level and any religious beliefs that seek to limit the amount and type of education available to people are going to have negative impacts on the average intelligence of those who are indoctrinated into them.

That is half true. So integrating muslims may be more difficult than most people imagine.
No amount of education will change fluid intelligence.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence

leftypol, can you appreciate that people are just born less empathetic than you by mere chance of testosterone and that they aren't any less human or dumber because of it?


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing–systemizing_theory

...

Actually the best way I've seen it explained is that while higher intelligence is effective for solving novel problems (i.e. in engineering, science, etc), issues arise when those same highly intelligent people apply that same approach which works in closed systems to larger systems, such as society. I guess what I'm saying is that they're so used to thinking in abstractions that common sense tends to elude them

And is ultimately why libertarians generally come off as a bunch of tone-deaf, clueless spergs

IIRC Haidt associated racism with a "loyalty" trait (i.e. in-group/out-group association), which conservatives tended to score much higher on than liberals, and linked that to conservative support for things like the military and patriotism

autistic male brained children are still worse people than non-autistic balance brained children. there is nothing virtuous about being evil. (spooks here) if you want to call others good or bad then their base disposition and thoughts about others matter considerably. The idea that we can just discount their nervous structure, thought patterns and psycho-physical responses to stress and social interactions is a blatant attempt to protect a special interest from careful analysis (much like how whites don't talk about their influence or role in defense and big-pharma). If you are born with more testosterone exposure in the womb and you are a pasty, unlikable
psychopath/sociopath who is barely domesticated and can't be relied on in crisis to risk their life for the good of the tribe or group, you're a liability to other people's self interests. I don't think you need to care about Stacy breaking up with Chad and how sad she is, but if she tried to harm herself or kill herself because of the breakup in front of you, id expect you to intervene. If you stood their and let her do it, because you don't care about her life, you're a bad person. If you like watching gore porn or torture vids, you're a bad person. You should have biological urges to protect others and to be averse to their extreme suffering. Again i don't care about breakupd and colds. But, death and intense pain or debilitating mental anguish are pretty much universally worthy of empathy and some reflection or attention. Even people like Charles Manson and Terry Nichols deserve our empathy. Not our time or money, but our acceptance that they have a life and dreams and subjective experiences anf they're suffering immensly. (End Spooks)

Dehumanization of "the other" and participating in tribal groupthink is exactly how you decrease your own group's ability to empathise with another group, though.

Shit, isn't that what leftypol is guilty of doing to the right?

Not really. Have you ever heard of the Cambridge Capital controversies? Keynes and his like consistently demolished most Neoclassical opponents he came up against, and Post Keynesians like Steve Keen have poked many, many holes in the Neoclassical school as far as mathematics go.

If by libertarians we means Austrians, then I refuse to believe this study. No one who isn't an ideologue or retarded would conduct economics as a deductive science.


No.

Haidt views in-group/out-group feeling as the inevitable end result of both the necessity of co-operations among humans and competition with neighbouring tribes.

I'd recommend Haidt's The Righteous Mind to Holla Forums regardless - it goes into significant detail into the duality of humanity (i.e. both as individuals and as members of groups), how religions promote co-operative behaviour etc

Fluid intelligence or fluid reasoning is the capacity to reason and solve novel problems, independent of any knowledge from the past.[2] It is the ability to analyze novel problems, identify patterns and relationships that underpin these problems and the extrapolation of these using logic. It is necessary for all logical problem solving, e.g., in scientific, mathematical, and technical problem solving. Fluid reasoning includes inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence
Actually. . . being more intelligent may make you MORE likely to prefer the Austrian school of economics because people high in intelligence would excel at it.

I'd let that hoe Stacy die, breh.

Not seeing the connection.

that they can conceive an*

According to the story, conservatives and liberals have a much different view of what it means to be compassionate. This is how it goes:

The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals

A Conservative and Liberal are walking down the street when they came to a homeless person.
The Conservative gave him his business card and told him to come to his business for a job.
He then took twenty dollars our of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Liberal was very impressed and when they came to another homeless person he decided to help.
He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office.

The columnist George Will found several other striking metrics that underscore this point:
Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

It appears that despite the common objections to the studies, there is at least some truth to the notion that conservatives give more to charity, while liberals see the government as a source of 'charity.'
ijr.com/2015/03/276715-difference-liberals-conservatives-demonstrated-one-simple-powerful-story/

The right isn't all bad . calm down.

I was mulling over answering your question at face. I'm still gonna do that, OP. But to be polite, here's a quick response to the studies bit:

Like some others, I'm not surprised. Libertarians, when placed in a pool of average people (or average college students), tend to be above the average room intelligence. But I do have some possible concerns - I'm not sure how they controlled for anarchist or minarchist politics, and I think class could very likely weigh in to both the average libertarian's outlook and education. Liberalism is much more common, and probably less affiliated with particular classes. I think I had something else to say, but I don't recall.

Anyway, on to my personal answer to the subject question that I came here to answer. Fuck you, OP. This part below's about ideology moreso than Autism Level.

My experience is that there is often a mutual closet shared by conservatives and libertarians. There are a lot of Republicans in 'Murrika who are socially more liberal/less religious and are Ayn Rand fans and admirers of Friedman and whathaveyou, but don't consider themselves libertarians but rather conservatives or Republicans. Likewise, a lot of libertarians are kind of just closet conservatives. It's kind of like the relationship a lot of liberals seem to have with Marx and Chomsky and the like.

Other libertarians are former liberals who want to feel progressive but also want to dehumanize other people without being scrutinized by their peers.

On the bright side, libertarians tend to be a bit less likely to automatically accept a conservative candidate. On the downside, even when they don't (and remember that a lot of them are really stoked right now about a guy who ran on law & order and tariffs, and has proposed bringing back lost provisions of the Patriot Act), they're very frequently the kind of people who decided Mike Brown deserved to be executed in the street before it even came out that he'd attacked a cop. Most libertarians seem to severely lack understanding of their biases and positions, and so not only tend to be a lot more actually reactionary than they claim to be, but also much less anti-government.

On the other hand, I've found that "closet libertarian" types of Conservatives who've grown into Republicans seem to at least be more honest in their views most of the time, as they don't rely on the ideological shield that the Libertarian label provides.

no wonder you have to devote an entire thread to explaining the superiority of your opponents. LOL

...

average commie, everyone

I can really see that lower average intelligence taking its toll

ITT: Rich illiterate baffles boffins

you're the only one in this thread whose post I can't understand, user

this song violates the NAP

Found your problem