Forum:Equating liberalism with intelligence


 * Moved from Saloon Bar 13:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to take a second to look at the actual argument here: why do we look at political/religious views to gauge intelligence? As Neveruse says, it can be a useful metric, but I think it's more complicated than that. For example, if you are an atheist in a heavily secular community, that doesn't prove that you are any more rational than someone who is religious in a heavily religious community. In fact, I think most of us come from communities with a reasonably-sized atheist/agnostic population, so we earn less rationality points for being atheists than someone who has lived their whole life in an evangelical community. Looking at political views is even more complicated than that, but it's pretty similar - being a believer in democracy doesn't make you exceptionally rational if you live anywhere with a strong democratic tradition. (Hat tip) 21:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's definitely true. Some people seem to take it for granted that "I'm atheist therefore I'm moar reasoned!!!12" but that's not the case. If you're an atheist because "that's the way you're raised" or "all religion is baaaad!!" or whatever, then you're no more rational than someone who's religious for the same reason. Did you read the recent one that was WIGO'd that hypothesised that the IQ/liberalism-atheism correlation was due to a mating strategy resulting from going to university and delaying having children? Quite interesting, although I'm not totally convinced that it's that straightforward. 22:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean this? I agree, I doubt it's as simple as the article makes it out to be. For example, atheism has little to do with the social conventions discussed, unless you proved that belief in a supreme being is anti-correlated to "liberal" sexual preferences. 22:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I always believe media reports on evolutionary biology as applied to social conventions - David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I'm SuspectedReplicant and I endorse what has been said above. Almost all my close relatives are Christians and they're all intelligent. I don't have a problem when somebody says they believe in God and want to live a truly Christian life: what bothers me is when they start becoming Schlafly-like and saying that religion should influence politics. I do not, never have, and hopefully never will use somebody's religious affiliation as a gauge of their intelligence. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @SR: I think "never" is too strong a word. If someone believes in a religious/fringe idea and deliberately ignores overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that is probably a somewhat accurate indicator that they have a tendency to act irrationally.  22:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true, but it's not what I said. All I meant was that if someone tells me they're a (whatever)ian, I won't judge their intelligence based on that statement. If they can't back it up then that's a different matter. This reminds me of my political days. I spent some time in Islwyn, South Wales during the by-election to replace Neil Kinnock. What really, really, really pissed me off was the huge number of people who were going to vote Labour because "I've always voted Labour. My father voted Labour. HIS father.." etc. And yes, I really did hear MANY people say that - it's not a stereotype. Ditto religion. My brother-in-law now holds some kind of position in a church that even does the whole speaking in tongues thing. Do I think he's wrong? Yes. Do I think he's an idiot? No. Because he can - in not-easily-refuted terms - justify what they do. I think I've said before on this site that he's an intelligent Christian: to use a phrase Stephen Fry used in the Hippopotamus: he's slightly too intelligent to be convenient. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "I am a Lutheran" says nothing about a scientist. "I am a fundamentalist Christian," however, does.
 * In any case, humans are stupid, and being a smart human just means you can be stupid on a bigger scale. "I read LessWrong so I'm more rational than you!" actually means "I have a much better toolkit with which to be carefully, correctly wrong!" Bloody atheists - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * *cough* and for a personal example, I only just noticed that Tetronian linked a LessWrong article above, and wasn't making a personal dig :-) Sorry about that - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (On that note, anyone feel up to writing an article about LessWrong that gets across why it and its readers can be really bloody annoying, not just what's good about it?) - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it eventually. But to address your earlier point: though reading LessWrong and similar websites just gives you the ability to be wrong for even more reasons (which, by the way, is called the "sophisticated arguer effect"), as rationalists we should do our best to apply our knowledge of argumentation and logic fairly and evenly so that we recognize our own mistakes. (That's the point of LessWrong, after all.) So, though most people probably abuse their knowledge by using it to defend things they already believe in, nor everyone does. It's just very hard to tell which is which. 22:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To put my irritation into a sentence: "Rationalism is not a substitute religion. Stop preaching." - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, is that what you find annoying about LessWrong, or was that just an extension of the point you and Armond were making above? 23:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What I find irritating about LessWrong ("Say, friend, have you heard the good word of our friend Eliezer Yudkowsky?"), but it also works as an extension of the above point - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have seen people foam at the mouth whilst linking to one of Eliezer's articles. What I find more aggravating, though, is that most of their conversations are almost inaccessible to someone who hasn't read a lot of LessWrong articles. Though what goes on over there is very interesting, the amount of reading you have to do to appreciate it is enormous. 00:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Key phrase: "As rationalists, we should ..." with a link to a LessWrong article. And from what you describe of the jargonification, it's not rationalism at all, it's LessWrongism.
 * So what's irritating is easy. What's good despite that? What remains irritating despite the good bits? LessWrong - stub please - David Gerard (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (Note also that the Eliezer quote I put on scientific method remains brilliant.) - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Nice thread, is all I have to say. 06:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if this in anyway related to the above discussion but I will put my oar in anyway. I do not think religious faith is in anyway irrational. It appears to me to be a very useful coping mechanism for dealing with the utter pointlessness of existence. Remove faith in God from someone and they would need to replace the sense of belonging and purpose with something else, which I fear for a lot of people science doesn't quite cut it. For my part, I am clearly not as educated as most folk on this site, and science has only a passing interest for me and offers me no solace in my atheism. Knowing how the world came about and the origins of life does not help me sleep easy at night with the comfort of knowing my place in the world. Science gives me the how of things but does not tell me why they should be so. For a lot folk the why comes from their faith. It allows them to carry on in spite of their our crushing insignificance in this universe. That's not to say people come to their faith through rational means, but that faith is rational. As for atheism, it has already been stated that it is not necessarily rational but I think it should be stated that it need not have its roots in science - mine certainly isn't. The sheer awfulness that goes on in the world - flood, famine, disease, murder, war, etc. convinces me as that a god is unlikely and fills with disgust at the thought of a god could allow such things and be worthy of worship. My apologies for my rambling, I haven't slept for 30+ hours. Oh and in case you are wondering, I am not an angst ridden teenager.--AMassiveGay (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oar in response to oar, but not directly related: "the comfort of knowing my place in the world"... Christianity was a critical part of the superstructure of feudal society. The Church indoctrinated peasants and the like to hold the fervent belief that "to challenge the lord of the manor is equivalent to challenging the lord of the universe." In this context, religion simultaneously comforted the masses while ensuring that their objective conditions would remain the same for a long time. Christianity's role in the feudal superstructure was so intrinsic that one of the major parts of the transition to capitalism was a new interpretation of the Bible for the Church to "enforce." I'm not qualified at all to judge whether religion plays a similar role in the superstructure of modern Western society (or even if the modern West has a superstructure), but historically, religion has had two faces: the first, of comforting and reassuring and providing those unknowable answers; and the second, of enforcing the dominant ideology, and preserving objective conditions. Do I sound too much like a (shhh) Marxist? 08:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree completely with you regarding christianity, and I seek in no way to defend it, but it does not change the fact that faith can and does bring peace to a great many people. I am often envious of religiously inclined people that I know who just aren't as hung up on these issues as I am. They seem to be genuinely happy people with direction and purpose, and it would seem churlish of me to criticise them because I believe it is based on a lie. Of course I know just as many people whom I would describe as atheists (without knowing for certain their beliefs) who are just as happy, with as much a sense of purpose as my christian friends. I'd say they were more career driven and materialistic but at least one of em volunteers for all kinds charity work. So if not faith, then what is it that provides that comfort or purpose or direction? As it is, it is only bed sores that gets me out of bed in the morning. Oh, the way, VERY much like a marxist --AMassiveGay (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

'Intelligence'
Having spent more time in a university than is natural, I have to say that many of the student leftists who get wrapped up in dogmatic political absolutism inevitably end up on the dole queue, having never worked a day in their life. Either that or getting a cushy executive job in daddy's company. Most come from intensely privileged backgrounds and never required a part time job. Excuse my cynicism, but most of the spoilt little brats who bear the anarchist or communist flag genuinely don't know what its like to have to get up in the morning and work. Take for example the 'May events' in Paris in 1968, where we had the spectacle of bourgeouis students attacking landless peasants serving in the French police. The idiocy and hypocrisy of it all is amazing.

So is political 'sophistication' a useful indicator of intelligence? Most certainly not. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned this here once before but its relevant to this conversation so I'll repeat (though truncated). There was a protest at NZ parliament over the government cutting back on free Adult Night Classes some months back. This was highly unpopular of course but the Govt. needed to make some cutbacks somewhere. As I worked near parliament at the time I walked through the protest on my home and struck up a conversation with one of the protestors (embalzoned with typical left wing politics regalia). I asked him what he did for a living and he said he quit work about a year ago and hadn't got around to finding a new job. I asked he if he received a benefit and he said he did recieve an unemployment benefit. That's when I fucking lost it. Dude, the reason that Govt. has to cut back on these services is because lazy fuckers like you who are able bodied don't find jobs and suck up benefits. Now you come down here and protest because the Govt. can afford something? The hypocritical philistine failed to even see the irony and I am sure more than half the crowd were the same. Who else but the unemployed can go out and protest at 3:30pm on Wednesday afternoon? There are many in NZ like this and it pisses me right off. AceX-102 11:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

blah blah blah
What puts me off here in the first place is an association of two inexact things and trying to draw some significance from that. "Liberalism" is hardly something that can be measured on a bipolar scale and intelligence tests are naturally biased. It's comparing apples to earthquakes. As far as the "research" goes, it seems to me they've established the definitions they counted on and went from that with "evolutionary novelty", et cetera.

Maybe I'm being too stubborn about it. I only read summaries, after all. Real experimentation may have actually been put into practice, biases accounted for and all possibilities exhausted. All that good stuff. It just seems a little silly to say "male sexual exclusivity" is "evolutionarily novel" and "evolutionary novelty" correlates with like a 7 point difference on standardized IQ testing.

Either way it's something someone somewhere will be smug about but I ought not let that ruin my party. All I need to personally qualify someone as intelligent is the ability to accept that sometimes they're wrong (not just when it's to save face) and learn from it.
 * That's pretty much what everyone was agreeing on in the first section... 00:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)