Study: Liberals are Smarter?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

According to a research study done by Nature Neuroscience, people who describe themselves as liberal are generally a bit... well... smarter:

We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/...bs/nn1979.html

Lest anyone think I'm posting this just for its incendiary value, here is a well-reasoned rebuttal of the study from the very intelligent conservative William Saletan of slate.com:
http://www.slate.com/id/2173965

Honestly, I'm hoping this will be fodder for some interesting discussion--and this isn't meant to be an opening salvo for some liberal vs. conservative pissing contest. Personally, I don't think much of social-psychological studies that over-generalize from their data--but it's equally pointless to dismiss the study altogether without looking at it on its merits--i.e. who's doing the study, and what might be the particular axe they're grinding, and is it methodologically sound? Whenever scientists extrapolate from something very minute, like performance of a specific task to something like "intelligence," for which there aren't really good definitions out there, I'm skeptical. I'm interested in hearing what others think as well.

Although he and I aren't exactly fellow travelers in an ideological sense, I'm a huge admirer of Saletan, and a regular reader of his column. (In fact, that's how I found this study in the first place.) But it seems to me that in this case, his critique sounds a bit.... well... defensive. I'm wondering if a better rebuttal to this study could be concocted from among the brighter conservative minds around here.

[guzzy]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

According to a research study done by Nature Neuroscience, people who describe themselves as liberal are generally a bit... well... smarter:

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/...bs/nn1979.html

Lest anyone think I'm posting this just for its incendiary value, here is a well-reasoned rebuttal of the study from the very intelligent conservative William Saletan of slate.com:
http://www.slate.com/id/2173965

Honestly, I'm hoping this will be fodder for some interesting discussion--and this isn't meant to be an opening salvo for some liberal vs. conservative pissing contest. Personally, I don't think much of social-psychological studies that over-generalize from their data--but it's equally pointless to dismiss the study altogether without looking at it on its merits--i.e. who's doing the study, and what might be the particular axe they're grinding, and is it methodologically sound? Whenever scientists extrapolate from something very minute, like performance of a specific task to something like "intelligence," for which there aren't really good definitions out there, I'm skeptical. I'm interested in hearing what others think as well.

Although he and I aren't exactly fellow travelers in an ideological sense, I'm a huge admirer of Saletan, and a regular reader of his column. (In fact, that's how I found this study in the first place.) But it seems to me that in this case, his critique sounds a bit.... well... defensive. I'm wondering if a better rebuttal to this study could be concocted from among the brighter conservative minds around here.

Maybe so but being smarter and actually possessing common sense and an ability to use it are two different things. If they were so smart then why did the people of Canada (ontario) actually allow them to steal from us for 13 years while doing nothing that could even be close to considered governing? Just a thought.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by guzzy

Maybe so but being smarter and actually possessing common sense and an ability to use it are two different things. If they were so smart then why did the people of Canada (ontario) actually allow them to steal from us for 13 years while doing nothing that could even be close to considered governing? Just a thought.

I'd argue it's been some time since the Liberals were, well... liberal. But be that as it may, this is a U.S. study, so it didn't deal at all with Canadian party politics.

One question that occurred to me after posting: why ask the question in this way at all? Isn't the study structured in such a way as to find a difference between two groups? If so, why liberal vs. conservative, and not, say, blonde vs. brunette, or right-handed vs, left-handed? I wonder if that isn't the study's biggest flaw?

[Knut]

"Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern. "

---> Duhhhhhhhhhhh...... too dumb to understand <drools on keyboard>

[Knut]

Seriously though....

This seems like an extremely flawed study.... first off was there examiner bias? Secondly, they are saying that changing habits = smart, while staying structured isnt ?? I hardly think that has anything to do with how smart someone is.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Seriously though....

This seems like an extremely flawed study.... first off was there examiner bias? Secondly, they are saying that changing habits = smart, while staying structured isnt ?? I hardly think that has anything to do with how smart someone is.

I agree--one of the problems in measuring intelligence is that when pressed, cognitive scientists have a really hard time defining it.

Furthermore, if you look at how they measure "adaptive" versus "habitual" thinking, it strikes me that there's a leap there too.

It's the kind of thing where I WANT to be able to point to this study and say "look--we liberals really ARE smarter!" But in fact, having seen the study it does nothing to contradict the evidence of my own admittedly anecdotal experience that there are plenty of really smart conservatives out there.

I think it's interesting that they structured the study in this way in the first place. Why allow people to self-identify into "liberal" vs. "conservative" cohorts rather than asking more specific questions about their philosophical approach to life and politics? Are people who call themselves conservative really always conservative? I rather suspect that this isn't always the case.

[Knut]

Honestly.... now this may be oversimplifying..... you could ask 1000 people "What kind of fruit do you like better, Apples or Oranges ?"

You could measure brain activity and come up with statistically-significant proof that those that eat Apples are smarter.

See... those that eat apples can change this habits... therefore they are smarter.

[CaptainCrunch]

The problem with any research on intelligence is that its confined to a very small study group, so in terms of societal truths, its a worthless study.

50 years ago, doctors looked at the results of IQ tests given to the average african american and decided on the whole blacks were less intelligent due to the poorer results. This was held as a common belief until the Chitlan IQ test was used and on average the test results of the test subjects increased by a large amount.

When I look at the statement

"Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern. "

I don't think it says anything about smarter versus dumber, but it might point to the differences in social and mental agility.

I've met some dumb conservatives, and I'm met some really dumb liberal's, I've also met some brilliant Liberals and brilliant conservatives, but honestly, I don't think societal views and political affiliations define sectors of intelligence.

Now if you'll excuse me there's a bright light moving around on the floor and I'm going to go chase it for a while.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Now if you'll excuse me there's a bright light moving around on the floor and I'm going to go chase it for a while.

My advice is to pretend like you're not interested for a while and then surprise it by pouncing suddenly.

[transplant99]

"Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern. "

And here I sit breathing exclusively through my mouth.

That just hurt my brain to read...maybe its cause of sleep deprivation of late, or maybe because I tend to be conservative and therefore really am dumber than those who penned it!!

[octothorp]

Seems to me that this might have more than a little to do with education. Someone who's a creative thinker (as opposed to a structured thinker) is more likely to be drawn to an fine arts or communication or liberal arts degree, while structured thinkers are more likely to be drawn to programs such as business or engineering. Thus, the creative thinker is more likely to have studies, professors, and peers who are a liberal influence on them.

I'd say that any study would need to account for this: take two lawyers who had a similar education and are of differing political affiliations - is the liberal more likely to be a creative thinker? Probably not. Similarly, take two conservatives who hold similar beliefs, one of whom is an artist and one of whom is an accountant. Is the artistic conservative more likely to have more adaptive thought patterns? Probably.

[Resolute 14]

Rebuttal: Stephane Dion.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Honestly.... now this may be oversimplifying..... you could ask 1000 people "What kind of fruit do you like better, Apples or Oranges ?"

You could measure brain activity and come up with statistically-significant proof that those that eat Apples are smarter.

See... those that eat apples can change this habits... therefore they are smarter.

Well now you are debating correlation vs causation.

Maybe there are flaws in the study, but I'm not prepared to sit down and go through it to find out.

Perhaps there is a bias, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the results. It can make you wonder if the results published were cherry picked.

But is the sample size large enough to get meaningful results, are the results statistically significant, was the sample representative, ... a whole myriad of things.

But even if this study is correct, really, what difference does it make?
It isn't like one side is always correct, the other always wrong.

Other than a reason to demean an opposing thought, I can't really see a purpose to this study.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Seems to me that this might have more than a little to do with education. Someone who's a creative thinker (as opposed to a structured thinker) is more likely to be drawn to an fine arts or communication or liberal arts degree, while structured thinkers are more likely to be drawn to programs such as business or engineering. Thus, the creative thinker is more likely to have studies, professors, and peers who are a liberal influence on them.

I'd say that any study would need to account for this: take two lawyers who had a similar education and are of differing political affiliations - is the liberal more likely to be a creative thinker? Probably not. Similarly, take two conservatives who hold similar beliefs, one of whom is an artist and one of whom is an accountant. Is the artistic conservative more likely to have more adaptive thought patterns? Probably.

Good post--and a good suggestion.

In truth, I suspect that what such a study might find is two things:

1. Liberals and conservatives think through certain problems differently.
2. This difference reflects their values and not their intelligence.

But controlling for education and profession seems to me a minimal requirement, now that you mention it.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Good post--and a good suggestion.

In truth, I suspect that what such a study might find is two things:

1. Liberals and conservatives think through certain problems differently.
2. This difference reflects their values and not their intelligence.

But controlling for education and profession seems to me a minimal requirement, now that you mention it.

I think religious belief and extent 'of' that belief would also be a huge factor in what some would define as intelligent.

[badnarik]

I would like to see the questionnaire.

"A measure of political attitudes was embedded in a larger set of personality and attitudes surveys completed at the every beginning of the experimental session."

What does "every beginning" mean?

[evman150]

Wow...this is surprising...not.

Especially considering this is an American study. Thinking about it, all those bible morons in the south...sure this study's validity, sample size, bias can be called into question, but the result is what is expected.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by evman150

Wow...this is surprising...not.

Especially considering this is an American study. Thinking about it, all those bible morons in the south...sure this study's validity, sample size, bias can be called into question, but the result is what is expected.

Finally, someone says something that will piss people off.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Good post--and a good suggestion.

In truth, I suspect that what such a study might find is two things:

1. Liberals and conservatives think through certain problems differently.
2. This difference reflects their values and not their intelligence.

But controlling for education and profession seems to me a minimal requirement, now that you mention it.

My thinking on 2, is that maybe values do reflect intelligence. How I look at it is conservatives are more ready to accept structure and rules such as the Ten Commandments, the local laws, their leaders, their fathers and just because we always did it that way.
Liberals are more likely to question structure because they've seen flaws where the law and social mores are not perfect. I'd say liberals are more intelligent, just for recognizing these flaws and are more willing to change. Conservatives by defintion are not.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I am definitely going to have to look up this study and read the whole thing. Based on the teaser it sounds fascinating.

Interestingly, I just got back from a gathering of some 400+ psychologists/psychologists in training and the average intelligence quotient in that room was higher than any other place I have been. It was exilerating to discuss real problems with people that were not only well educated, but well versed, and could defend a position. I wish I had known about the study prior to going, as it would have made for some very lively discussion.

Oh, and there is no doubt that, generally speaking, liberals are more intelligent than conservatives, as progressive intelligence requires adaptive reasoning, a failure in the basis of conservative ideology. The study speaks of increased neurocognitive sensitivity that allow for altering habitual response patterns, which is all about being adaptable to ever changing situations and stimuli. To put that into terms that my mouthbreathing friends can understand, liberals know when to cut and run, conservatives know when to dig in, or worse, surge.

BTW... hard to have bias come into play in this study. Brain scans are used to register activity in these parts of the brain, so unless the machine is a liberal or a conservative, the chances for a failure in this regard is extremely slim. We are talking about brain functions, not developmental or cognitive functions.