DiscussMormonism.com

http://spq.sagepub.com/content/73/1/33

"The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis,
derived from the logical conjunction of the
Savanna Principle and a theory of the evolution
of general intelligence, suggests that
more intelligent individuals may be more
likely to acquire and espouse evolutionarily
novel values, such as liberalism, atheism,
and, for men, sexual exclusivity, than less
intelligent individuals, while general intelligence
may have no effect on the acquisition
and espousal of evolutionarily familiar values"

It's a bit ironic when you double post a post about intelligence.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:It's a bit ironic when you double post a post about intelligence.

It's always nice when people negate themselves through performative contradiction.

Buffalo wrote:http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/jost.glaser.political-conservatism-as-motivated-social-cog.pdf

From that paper:

The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat.

Doesn't sound like Runtu or me at all. I wonder why this was their working definition, it wasn't clear to me when I read the first few pages.

I think the psychological theory goes that conservatism arises when the realization occurs in the conservative individual that by neither ability nor temperament do they deserve the rank or privilege they enjoy. They then begin to invent reasons why this rank and privilege should continue.

moksha wrote:I think the psychological theory goes that conservatism arises when the realization occurs in the conservative individual that by neither ability nor temperament do they deserve the rank or privilege they enjoy. They then begin to invent reasons why this rank and privilege should continue.

What I understood was that they were using research that said that persons with cognitive features X, Y, and Z are typically political conservatives, therefore, political conservatism shall be defined by X,Y, and Z.

I have little ability with sociological research and psychological research, so my understanding is going to be incomplete at best, so I was wondering if someone had understood it differently.

I self identify as conservative, but I don’t think the article really describes me, so I’m a little bit skeptical.

Nothing new there.... Neither liberals nor anti-mormons describe their "target" accurately.
Clearly an article written by some liberal elitists, who only see their fantasy, contrary to reality.

Liberals, your judgments of conservatives and conservatism simply aren't the truth. They are a little truth used to tell great lies.
Anti-Mormons, you judgments also of Mormons and Mormonism simply aren't the truth. They are a little truth used to tell great lies.

I've been involved with anti-mormonism for years, and didn't start getting into knowing politics until about 10 years ago. It's always fascinated me to see how liberals and anti-mormons think and act exactly the same. The only differences being their target. It's just like modern anti-mormons are no different than anti-mormons of the past who attacked early Christianity.

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/Celsus.pdf

It makes me sad to see a Conservative anti-mormon, especially a Christian one. And it makes me sad to see a Liberal Mormon. All so sad, for they know not what they do.

Obiwan wrote:It makes me sad to see a Conservative anti-mormon, especially a Christian one. And it makes me sad to see a Liberal Mormon. All so sad, for they know not what they do.

You probably place a very literal interpretation on "suffer the little children".

A preliminary question (okay, questions) before I go any further:

Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

Wouldn't this make post-polygyny Mormons super-intelligent?

Another question here:

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.

Are there corroborative charitable atheist societies to establish this? While I think, and totally admire the charitable atheists I have known and read about, most charity work seems to be done by "less intelligent" Christians.

"Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa.

This study sounds awfully biased to me.

"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."

Friedrich Nietzsche could have written this himself.

I think this study needs some further analysis.

My Source: Science Daily