Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution

by Elsewhere 10 Replies latest jw friends

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    http://www.physorg.com/news186236813.html

    Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences and values that are novel in human evolution

    February 24th, 2010 in Other Sciences / Social Sciences

    More intelligent people are significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

    The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years."

    "Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of years are "evolutionarily familiar."

    "General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."

    An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light, they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.

    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.

    Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

    Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

    Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

    In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary history. Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were. In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women. And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these sex-specific predictions as well.

    One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.

    More information: The article "Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent" will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

    Provided by American Sociological Association

  • FreudianSlip
    FreudianSlip

    Wow. That's a great read. I'll pass it along to all my conservative, religious friends.

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    Make sure you wear a bullet proof vest.... wouldn't want to be "naturally selected".

  • JWoods
    JWoods

    You must really have to believe in the IQ system to make a "real" distinction between IQ averages of 103 and 97.

    BTW, in Liberal Thought 101, wasn't the whole IQ measurement system denigrated as unreliable and racist in past years?

    As usual, this is political pablum put up by some "researcher" with an axe to grind and a lack of something useful to do.

  • journey-on
    journey-on

    JWoods! Are you saying "researchers" stretch data, omit pieces of data, lose data, contort data, for some political/ideological agenda!!!!!?

  • JWoods
    JWoods
    JWoods! Are you saying "researchers" stretch data, omit pieces of data, lose data, contort data, for some political/ideological agenda!!!!!?

    Yes, Journey-On, sadly - I am afraid that this is exactly what I am saying. And what the climate scientists have found out over the past six months.

  • frankiespeakin
    frankiespeakin

    It could be cherry picking facts but I think they have improved IQ test over the years, just how I don't know.

    Does it include more area's of abstract thought and adaptablity,, applied logic,, how do they make up the tests and what exactly is being meassured?

    By novel do they just mean the new things as they are being discovered and understood? Seems like a for gone conclusion then that people who learn fast will be on the benifit curve and score higher on an IQ quiz so tell me something new. Why would they even need such a test to make such an obvious statement,,society's collective advancement of understanding and exploiting that understanding is a constant call for leaving the old ideas and forming new and inproved ones, the willingness to experiment and probe and to change ideas when advantages.

    Those stuck in old ideas unwilling to learn new ones has to be a force that retards and restricts thinking and thus the lower scores on an IQ test.

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    > It could be cherry picking facts but I think they have improved IQ test over the years

    Over the years the IQ test has become more difficult. This is because the population, as a whole, has also become more intelligent.

    Someone who scored among the best 10% a hundred years ago, would today be among the 5% weakest. This is known as the Flynn Effect.

    http://www.brainy-child.com/expert/iq-score.shtml

  • JWoods
    JWoods
    Over the years the IQ test has become more difficult. This is because the population, as a whole, has also become more intelligent.
    Someone who scored among the best 10% a hundred years ago, would today be among the 5% weakest. This is known as the Flynn Effect.

    Just a gut feeling, but I don't believe the above. For example, that would put Einstein in the weakest 5% today.

    People don't seem that smart to me for some reason.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    I was thinking the same thing as JWoods. The gross IQ score is a pretty crude indicator of intelligence, it is socially biased, and a difference between 97 and 103 seems pretty trivial and meaningless in light of things. It also seems dubious, or at least distorting of the complexity of intelligence, to reduce intelligence to a single unidimensional scale. What I do credit the IQ test for is not in the gross score but in the different subtest scores for potentially highlighting areas of strength and weakness that might help direct focus in education to strengthening problem areas. That was helpful for me because I had some pretty large peaks and valleys between the different scores, which were reflective of certain learning disabilities I had.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit