Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven is like VJ's very own Deepak Chopra

All your atoms come from the universe and are part of the collective conscience.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This sounds sillier and sillier every time you repeat it. Evolutionary tree? What on earth are you talking about?

Social behavior is part of adaptation, is it not?

Edited February 27, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The problem is, how many people in earlier generations HELD atheistic beliefs but were forced to keep them to themselves, lest they be ostracized, exiled, branded as heretics and / or executed? There's no way of knowing. For all we know, there may have been just as many atheists in prior generations, but they were forced to lie about their beliefs (or lack thereof).

And when we talk about earlier civilizations, how much of the religion mattered, as opposed to ritual and routine? You start getting into some shaky anthropological ground there.

Very true. That's the downside of cultural identity...is that there's little tolerance for deviations. And if you want to make a distinction between the term 'religion' and ritual, then that's fine. I would say that all ritualistic behaviors are grounded in some type of belief system. A religion doesn't necessarily mean something dogmatic.

[Danno 1,228]

The problem is, how many people in earlier generations HELD atheistic beliefs but were forced to keep them to themselves, lest they be ostracized, exiled, branded as heretics and / or executed? There's no way of knowing. For all we know, there may have been just as many atheists in prior generations, but they were forced to lie about their beliefs (or lack thereof).

To accept that, you would also have to believe that, no great Atheists ever ruled earlier societies?

History is full of or even dominated by instances where leaders would dictate the religion for the people, sometimes converting to a new faith and then proclaiming it to be the new faith of the land.

Suggesting that the kings or tribal rulers were just following the faith of the subjects is weak.

How many Rulers do we know of that did away with religion altogether proclaiming no God exists? (Not counting Communists)

As rulers typically amass authority rather than share it......One might assume history would be full of such instances.

I would be more inclined to rationalize that Rulers, even if they were not followers of the predominate faith, did believe in "higher forces" and avoided challenging them for fear of God(s) wrath upon their kingdom/ tribe.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why silly? The ancient Hebrews were once polytheistic and eventually become monotheistic. In other words, their belief system evolved.

Social evolution does exist. If it didn't humans would still be living in caves and painting on the walls with their fingers.

Humans haven't evolved biolgically in at least 50000 years, with our ability to develop new technologies we've actually evolved beyond our biology.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

One of VJ's resident old wise dudes posted yesterday that thanks to technology we shall be soon evolving into a society of savages.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

I would be more inclined to rationalize that Rulers, even if they were not followers of the predominate faith, did believe in "higher forces" and avoided challenging them for fear of God(s) wrath upon their kingdom/ tribe.

Actually, there are countless examples of past rulers believing that they were gods, and therefore deserved the unquestioned worship of the people. For just one example, all Sumerian rulers were said to be gods, or at least demigods. Whether they truly believed it or not, it was certainly a powerful tool to keep their subjects in check...

To accept that, you would also have to believe that, no great Atheists ever ruled earlier societies?

I don't follow. Why would accepting the one necessitate believing the other?

I imagine that there WERE atheists that ruled earlier societies. Hard to say for sure. I'm really not sure about the relevance of it though.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's funny,

when IQ tests tell us what we like (We are smart) we like them, when they show some Groups are clearly smarter than other groups.... they are unreliable devices to reinforce Racial prejudices.

Says who?

Edited February 27, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Danno 1,228]

I imagine that there WERE atheists that ruled earlier societies. Hard to say for sure. I'm really not sure about the relevance of it though.

My thought being, if there were Great Rulers who were Atheist, they would have built societies reflecting that.

Unless Atheists are above the temptation to incorporate their belief system into law.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Organized religion was (and arguably still is) about power, attaching divine endorsement to the government essentially legitimized the actions of ruling classes. That's about all there is to your question.

Early peoples weren't atheist. If there are more atheists now than before, that really only means that religion is not as pervasive (or relevant) than it used to be.

[mendeleev 68]

No it didn't, at least not in the sense that social scientists want to co-opt the term evolution. Their belief system changed, sure. In the informal everyday usage of the word 'change'.

'Evolve' in the biological sciences means very specific things about adaptation of organisms to their environment based upon fitness. It doesn't just mean "change". I don't think it's helpful at all when social science jumps on the bandwagon of physical sciences and tries to use precise terms and concepts to express by analogy similar but very different things.

Its very precious how, in the time it takes for half a dozen posts to pass by, Scandal goes from not knowing what Social Evolution is to be able to comment authoritatively what it is and isn't.

[Teacher Mark 53]

I disagree with that. Religion serves an important role in social evolution or it wouldn't exist - to help people grapple with the mystery of creation as well as their own mortality. There's something very nihilistic to the notion that your life doesn't matter beyond the here and now.

"Give us zee money Lebowski!"

I don't think it does, but maybe I'm wrong?

[justashooter 430]

what a bunch of hogwash. speaking as a person who has repeatedly been tested in the high 130's, and scored in the 99th percentile in SAT and ACT testing, i can say that the author is drawing conclusions that are based in flawed research, and is prolly just bolstering an unconscious agenda.

i do agree that more intelligent people will naturally tend toward atheism, but do not believe that more intelligent people will naturally tend toward liberalism.

more intelligent people tend to experience more educational experiences, and today's education is highly liberal. i believe that this bias toward liberalism in the educational process is causing the correlation that this researcher is describing as a cause. there is a significant difference between correlation and causation, and this researcher is "choice blind" in ignoring the fact.

the most intelligent people would naturally tend toward atheism, and toward conservatism. in either preference, they are recognising their own self actualisation and expressing the power of their persona. sure, you can take those that score 115-125, stick them in liberal indoctrination centers for 4-6 years, and they will come out educated liberals, so scoring better on intelligence tests. the truth is, they are just brainwashed, and not smart enough to realise it has happened.

for myself, i have some of the characteristics that are typically identified as liberal. i have a genuine concern for those around me that warrant concern while retaining a genuine dispassion toward those who are not worthy of respect. i do believe in freedon of expression (how did liberals convince everyone that conservatives do not, when the truth is quite the reverse?). i also believe that some criminals can be reformed thru acculturation (but do not extend this to all).

[justashooter 430]

One of VJ's resident old wise dudes posted yesterday that thanks to technology we shall be soon evolving into a society of savages.

i am pleased to note that you are at least understanding the concepts i espouse, if not accepting them.

as for how soon, well, it's already happening. look around you.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.

speaking as a person who has repeatedly been tested in the high 130's, and scored in the 99th percentile in SAT and ACT testing

Repeatedly tested? Did they, or you, think that there was a mistake?

Edited February 28, 2010 by Mr. Saigon