IQ is bullshit propaganda, fuck the nazi term
Literal eugenics term
yeah, we don’t need this masturbatory shit here
Replace high IQ with “not a dumb fuck” then
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.
Also IQ is racist, better ask somebody
Is it still as racist as it was originally? Because IIRC it was largely racist because of poverty among people of color and the fact that people who’d had less nutrition growing up, would score worse. But I could be wrong of course, that’s why I’m genuinely asking.
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
I’m inclined to agree with you there. Of course one thing to consider is that even in a group of completely selfish people, the more intelligent ones may have a better understanding of how their own lives could be bettered by policies that elevate everyone, whereas the less intelligent ones are more likely to fall prey to conservative propaganda.
Is it still as racist as it was originally?
Is capitalism still creating wealth inequality based on racial discrimination? Our prisons, which are disproportionately BIPOC would say so, as well as just about any other metric. While there is more diversity among the middle class than there once was, in the USA at least, structural racism is still quite urgent and prescient.
Also historically IQ has been as much a test of cultural whiteness as intelligence, so it isn’t just that people who are poor have less access to quality education, but racial poverty is concentrated and cultural as well as economic. So a naturally intelligent person with a non-white cultural upbringing, would also test lower on an IQ test.
Has IQ changed qualitatively over the last say 50 years? How much has the testing been adapted to suit cultural differences? I’m open to being wrong but I doubt it.
So out of curiosity I went and took a modern test that someone on reddit said is supposed to have a very good reliability rating (not that that says much). Yup, there were still some cultural/knowledge questions (“Which of these is a church most likely to have”), not just general problem solving and such.
Most importantly though I passed the test of not paying 15$ for getting the final result and instead googled what the percentile was equivalent to as it said I scored higher than X out of 1000 people. Perhaps if I was a white American I’d have scored a tiny bit higher, but honestly I’m very happy with the score I got, IF the test is accurate at all.
Edit: I also took another test and the vocabulary section was very much a “high-end school in English-speaking country” ordeal IMO. Most of those were not words you’d ever use. It was brutal, I had to go by vibes personally. More successful than I thought I’d be, but felt like an impostor lol
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.
Progressive conservatives is an oxymoron.
It is classic doublethink nonsense.
Respectfully disagree. But you’re welcome to your opinion.
About what, that spamming two polar opposite concepts together isn’t an oxymoron?
That isn’t an opinion, that is a definition. The opposite of Progressive is Conservative.
Niether concepts nor humans are monolithic things. It’s possible to be conservative in some areas of your life (finance, relationships, etc…) but progressive in others (equal rights, healthcare, etc…)
This notion that all conservatives are hard-C conservatives in every facet of their life, and all progressives are radical leftists in every area of their life, is frankly stupid and a major contributor to the polarization that we see all around us.
The reality is that with the exception (edited for spelling error) of maybe 5% of crazy people on either side (far right or far left) the VAST majority of us are a mixture of conservative and progressive opinions depending on the particular issue we’re talking about.
Thinking otherwise is frankly not helpful. But as I said, you’re welcome to your opinion.
Military intelligence is an oxymoron but there are plenty of smart people in the military. It is an oxymoron whether you admit it or not. I was just pointing that out.
Furthermore your definitions are very sus. An extreme progressive has nothing to do with leftist ideology. Progressives believe in using evidence to change policy to improve society.
It is an oxymoron whether you admit it or not
Military and Intelligence are nouns. So they are comparable things and can therefore be oxymoronic to one another.
Progressive and Conservative are adjectives and can only be oxymoronic if they’re describing the same thing.
They’re only function is to describe the noun that comes after them. In some cases, that is an unspoken noun, as is the case when someone describes themselves as “Progressive Conservative”. Really, what they’re saying is they are “Socially Progressive Fiscally Conservative”.
But that has trouble fitting on a lawn sign.
If they say “Socially progressive and Socially conservative” THAT’S an oxymoron. But as long as those two adjectives are describing different concepts (fiscal and social), they have nothing to do with each other and therefore not an oxymoron, whether you admit it or not.
If you want to go an a pedantic well actually battle royale in regards to the english language and proper nomenclature, bring receipts.
Military, Intelligence, Progressive, and Conservative are all nouns. Not sure where you are going with this. I think what you mean is these words can be a noun adjunct.
I totally get everyone is on a spectrum. Thank you for pointing that out.
When someone says they are a progressive conservative what they mean is they are a conservative who is embarrassed by the garbage conservatives push out. They are not progressive because a progressive is the opposite of a conservative.
Progressive want change, conservatives do not. So you are essentially saying you are someone who doesn’t want change that wants change. It is nonsensical.
Please stop it with pretending you have English language mastery.
Its not the people in the military but the processes that bring about all the stupidity.
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.
I kinda disagree that education correlates with empathy. Plenty of people in very high places of the defense industry have advanced STEM degrees. Most people working in the American government have degrees from highly regarded universities. All the people you can name that are doing sketchy shit right now went to an Ivy League school.
Idk, maybe most people become more empathetic with education, but it’s definitely not a law of nature that education will absolutely make you more empathetic.
if you’re enough of a sucker to go ahead and swallow the “empathy is weakness” propaganda, then you have no problem voting against your own best interests, just because it will hurt people you were told you’re supposed to hate
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.
My understanding is it was originally made for figuring out what grade a child belonged in. Like if a kid came to a school, what grade do you put them in? Give the IQ (intelligence quotient) test to determine what grade they go in. Take what they know (score on top) divided by what you expect them to know at that age (score on bottom) gives you a quotient for choosing what grade to place them in. Highly educated? Higher grade. Lower education? Lower grade. Fast learner? Jump a grade. Slower learner? Redo a grade.
Seems like it used to be a useful tool. I don’t think that’s how society uses it anymore, but from the start, I bet it probably worked ok.
What would you replace it with? While it’s not a good metric for individuals, in group studies, it’s a useful proxy for information processing intelligence.
Why? Just on principle?
You have to be stupid to be conservative.
It wasn’t always this way. There used to be intellectual conservatives like William F Buckley. His kind is practically extinct now.
Here’s David Frum and Mona Charen essentially mourning over the lack of a party for them, since the complete takeover of the Republican Party by right wing populism.
In truth I consider myself conservative. I really consider most of this horde we are dealing with regressives. They call themselves conservative but are some of the most wasteful people I’ve ever seen. They waste so much time worriing about how others act and live. Very non conservative when these others rarely interact with these idiots. I’m forced to use conservative to refer to them due to the fact that so many will not take the time to give them a more accurate name.
Conservatism can be traced back to royalists in both pre-revolutionary America and France. It is as it always was. It has never been about conserving anything but privilege and has always sought control over everyone else.
What you call conservativism was a rather unconvincing PR campaign. It was never about personal liberty or freedom. It was definitely never about conservation.
I leaned what it is from my grandpa, not a history book. He was tolerant and treated it as the root word suggests. Most of those in the US today could not care less about your take on it. If you trace any word back in time you will arrive at a point where the meaning was different. I trouble myself with the now and care not for the use of it in the distant past. You case case in point for what I wrote above. Quit calling them that and give them a more accurate and less flattering description. Regressive has no positive qualities. Where conservative does in the modern definition.
Yeah… conservatives have always been regressives. After the french revolution, it was the conservatives that wanted to return back to a monarchy. I think you are confusing yourself with being a liberal.
I’m not. I’m also not confusing my self with a french revolutionary.
It would seem that my historical take on it is pretty relevant since it is still what conservatism is doing to this day. What is Trump if not royalty? I would be happy to go back to calling them royalists or autocrats, but I don’t see that catching on.
There is a huge problem in this country with people who embrace progressive policy positions self-identifying as conservatives. It’s used disingenuously by both parties to justify oligarchy.
Are you able to give examples of what beliefs/values you hold that make you consider yourself conservative? Your comment made me curious, because I would like to believe that conservative people who aren’t repugnant people exist, but as time goes on, it feels like “conservative” is becoming synonymous with “reprehensible bigot”. I sympathise with your desire to distance yourself from them, and I’d be interested to hear more about your perspective.
Feel free to reply by DM if you don’t want to be interrogated on your beliefs if you answer my question. My intention isn’t to try to change your mind or anything, but to learn enough that I’m able to imagine a world in which people like me and conservatives like you could collaborate on solving problems, and use our inevitable points of disagreement as steps towards a more robust solution.
The problem with using the word conservative these days leaves out there used to be differnt types.
I’m fiscally conservative, I spend money on what is of use to me and try not to waste it on useless frills, such as alcohol or drugs or expensive essentials.
I materially conservative. My car is sixteen years old and well maintained. My phone is seven years old. It replaced one that went out after eleven years.
I am morally conservative. That word doesn’t mean what haters think it means. A moral cannot be negative to others. A moral that involves hate or judgment are no moral at all. They are simply hate in the form of bigotry and racism.
Finally I would consider myself socially liberal. I don’t feel any conflict between these outlooks.
These have nothing to to with religion in any way. They have through the simplification of the word been thrown into the fire with these people who do not embody is real conservative values. They use the word as a cover for their hate. They are regressive. throwbacks who pine for some imagined past.
My manager considers himself conservative, yet when I push him on things regarding social welfare, corporate regulations, etc… He espouses liberal or even sometimes leftist views.
It is odd lol.
I had a few professors who were clearly Bush conservatives that I followed on Facebook. After the first Trump presidency, they were slowly flipping. By Trump presidency 2, they loudly wanted anybody but Trump.
Of course, the unknown is who they voted for.
Stupid or rich.
You don’t have to be smart to be rich. You just have to lack basic decency or more simply empathy. Intellegence has nothing to do with wealth.
Not a fan of IQ as a measure, but it’s hard to quantify “intelligence” for the purpose of studies. All standard measurements tend to be biased in one way or another.
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.
God I hate the label ‘gifted’ so fucking much. Ever since I was a kid. All I can think when I hear that is “oh yeah? You think it’s such a gift, you try having my mind for a week”. The fucking depression and alienation and isolation of being neurodivergent is never mentioned or considered, just “oh you were a quiet kid and got As in school, you must have such a gift”.
“My mutant power is having so much empathy I am constantly depressed at the state of everything.”
– Average “gifted” person
Explains why John Fetterman became conservative after the stroke. Brain damage turns you into conservatives.
If you look at his Senate voting record, he didnt really then conservative until 2025. His stroke was in 2022 before he even won the election.
no, he was just a dino from the beginning. PA falls for plants like that all the time
Cruelty = Bad is apparently an equation over 40% of Americans can comprehend.
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.
My apologies for the two+ page rant.
If you don’t want to read that, here’s the TLDR:
Intelligent people are likely to consider the consequences.
When you consider the consequences of allowing the current conservative party to be in office, it’s unconscionable.
They are a bunch of scheming, disgusting, morally reprobate, terrible, and foul former schoolyard bullies who fight for the opportunity to have a job where they scream at decibel ratings higher than their IQ could ever hope to be.
Who in their right mind would ever want that to represent them?
Most of the world’s biggest intellectuals were socialists.
Albert Einstein, 1949: Why Socialism?
A total of 87 gifted adults and 71 non-gifted adults completed the survey.
I haven’t looked at their math but can that be enough data to look at eight different categories and avoid the green jelly beans phenomenon?
If the effect is real, I wonder to what extent it is mediated by the experience of being a social outsider.
IQ is a subjective measurement developed by a eugenicist to justify racism. It does not represent intelligence and should not be taken seriously
I think the scientific community would be pretty happy if you could share a better quantification of intelligence.
Maybe the scientific community should drop the idea of there being one in the first place
I don’t believe intelligence can be quantified nor do I think it is worth attempting. Like genuinely what would be the point.
Voter records would be a good start
Pretty sure they’ve changed a few things about the concept since then…
High IQ men
Christopher Michael Langan (born March 25, 1952) is an American horse rancher and former bar bouncer, known for scoring highly on an IQ test that gained him entry to a high-IQ society and for being formerly listed in the Guinness Book of Records high IQ section under the pseudonym of Eric Hart, alongside Marilyn vos Savant and Keith Raniere. The record was discontinued in 1990, as high IQs are considered too unreliable to document as world records.
…
Christopher Langan’s support of conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement, as well as his opposition to interracial relationships, have contributed to his gaining a following among members of the alt-right and others on the far right. Langan has claimed that the George W. Bush administration staged the 9/11 attacks in order to distract the public from learning about the CTMU, and journalists have described some of Langan’s Internet posts as containing “thinly veiled” antisemitism, making antisemitic “dog whistles”, and being “incredibly racist”
It later transpired that Langan, among others, had taken the Mega Test more than once by using a pseudonym. His first test score, under the name of Langan, was 42 out of 48 and his second attempt, as Hart, was 47.[12] The Mega Test was designed only to be taken once.[14][15] Membership of the Mega Society was meant to be for those with scores of 43 and upwards.
He’s a con, in more ways than one
So you saw a headline that said “tend to” and thought that was an absolute?
IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle
“IQ” is a stale test meant to measure mental capacity but in fact mostly measures extreme unintelligence (learning difficulties), as well as, to a lesser extent (with a lot of noise), a form of intelligence, stripped of 2nd order effects — how good someone is at taking some type of exams designed by unsophisticated nerds. It is via negativa not via positiva. Designed for learning disabilities, and given that it is not too needed there (see argument further down), it ends up selecting for exam-takers, paper shufflers, obedient intellectuals, ill adapted for “real life”. (The fact that it correlates with general incompetence makes the overall correlation look high, even when it is random, see Figures 1 and 2.) The concept is poorly thought out mathematically by the field (commits a severe flaw in correlation under fat tails and asymmetries; fails to properly deal with dimensionality; treats the mind as an instrument not a complex system), and seems to be promoted by
- Racists/eugenists
and
- Psychometrics peddlers looking for suckers
Okay? I mean, thanks for the information, but it doesn’t refute the headline. They didn’t say IQ tests were a good measure of intelligence.
He’s not really high IQ, he cheated and took the “Mega Test” multiple times.
The more you look into him the more full of shit he is. Saw an interview the guy did for the Daily Wire which the Daily Wire wound up scrapping, so much pseudoscience it’d make Spirit Science happy.
He’s not really high IQ
Brother, it’s a metric intended to measure disability. Bragging about your high IQ is a bit like Trump claiming he aced his senility test
Not surprising. This shows the significance of IQ in a meaningful way, which ironically is a conservative viewpoint. At least in some applications.
