Highlights

•

Individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence (2–5 IQ points)

•

Individuals who vote Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence (2 IQ points)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289614000373

😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

The conventional wisdom has always been that Democrats (liberals) are the bright sparks while Republicans are bigoted redneck hicks who can’t count the number fingers on their hands. HOWEVER, here was have a peer reviewed study from the most prestigious and respected university in the world, confirming that we all secretly knew, and that is Republicans are verbally more intelligent than Dumbs.. Oh I meant Dems. And we also know that verbal intelligence correlated strongly with general intelligence, so we can extrapolate from that that Republicans are intellectually superior to Democrats.

Its interesting that this study is buried deep inside the internet, yet other studies that propose that Democrats are smarter are frequently cited in online pop publications like Psychology Today, Vox etc. Guess the troof hurts 😆.

Also goes to show how pop internet sites can manipulate and distort perceptions that are incongruent with reality.

So intelligent that you somehow posted the same thing twice.

I shouldn't be mean. I'm sure today has been tough. 

Yes it was tough, but no doubt you would find the study’s findings very difficult to comprehend? But that wouldnt be surprising. 😆

Sweet jesus rusty. There's nuffy and then there's this 

You do have to laugh though.  Here in the abstract.

Research has consistently shown that intelligence is positively correlated with socially liberal beliefs and negatively correlated with religious beliefs. This should lead one to expect that Republicans are less intelligent than Democrats. However, I find that individuals who identify as Republican have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who identify as Democrat (2–5 IQ points), and that individuals who supported the Republican Party in elections have slightly higher verbal intelligence than those who supported the Democratic Party (2 IQ points). I reconcile these findings with the previous literature by showing that verbal intelligence is correlated with both socially and economically liberal beliefs (β = .10–.32). My findings suggest that higher intelligence among classically liberal Republicans compensates for lower intelligence among socially conservative Republicans.

Cheers Rus.

Is there a link to the full paper perchance?  Not that I doubt ya.  Just want to read what they have to say.

Nevermind.  Here it is.  https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2014-carl.pdf

Just happy to see this.

1. IntroductionOver the last few years, scholarly interest in the relationshipbetween intelligence and political beliefs has grown considerably. A consistent finding is that people with higher intelligence tend to be more socially liberal (Deary, Batty, & Gale,2008a, 2008b; Stankov, 2009; Kanazawa, 2010; Schoon, Cheng,Gale, Batty, & Deary, 2010; Heaven, Ciarrochi, & Leeson, 2011;Hodson & Busseri, 2012). Another consistent finding is that people with higher intelligence tend to be less religious (Bell,2002; Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg, 2009; Nyborg, 2009; Ganzach,Ellis, & Gotlibovski, 2013; Zuckerman, Silberman, & Hall, 2013).Given that Republicans tend to be both more religious and more socially conservative than Democrats (Newport, 2007;Saad, 2012), these two findings should lead one to expect that Republicans have lower intelligence.

But we knew that.

Probably best to read the whole thing before posting Rus.

Discussion 

Two important caveats should be attached to my conclusions. First, a 10-word vocabulary test is at best an imperfect measure of verbal intelligence, let alone general intelligence. Indeed, there is already evidence that the correlation between intelligence and political beliefs varies with the sub-dimension of intelligence under scrutiny. Specifically, Kemmelmeier (2008) found that although libertarian social attitudes were positively related to verbal SAT scores, they were unrelated to math SAT scores. Second, most of the effects I observe are small by conventional standards, especially the differences in verbal intelligence between Republicans and Democrats. According to convention, a standardized difference of 0.20 constitutes a small effect size; by contrast, a standardized difference of 0.50 is considered moderate, while a standardized difference of 0.80or greater is considered large (Cohen, 1988, pp. 24–8).

Also this paper was buried so far by big tech that it took me less than a second from typing the name in google to pulling up the pdf.  Disgraceful.

Person
Woman
Man
Camera
TV

I love it when you post links pretending to give the impression that you’ve read them 😂 

Possibly, but Republican doesn’t = Religious. Also it doest change the studies findings in the least bit.

Yet those “caveats” dont invalidate the conclusions of the study. Republicans being 2-5% smarter on average may not be that statistically significant, but it is still absolute in its findings that Republicans are more intelligent then Democrats.

Troof hurtz 😆

If it helps you sleep at night Rus then good on you.

BTW.  It's 2-5 IQ points not percentages.

The author, Noah Carl sounds like he has a pretty unscientific agenda.

Noah Carl is a British sociologist and intelligence researcher. He was investigated and subsequently dismissed from his position as a Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellow at St Edmund's College, Cambridge after over 500 academics signed a letter repudiating his research and public stance on race and intelligence, calling it "ethically suspect and methodologically flawed".

He is the second most prolific contributor to Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science, an online journal that has been described in the New Statesman as a "pseudo-science factory-farm", and he has contributed to Mankind Quarterly, which is described as a white supremacist journal.^[17] According to an article in the New Statesman from February 2018, Carl had also published two papers on whether larger Muslim populations make terrorism more likely and one suggesting that British stereotypes about immigrants are "largely accurate".

From the study:
"The primary measure of intelligence available in the GSS is a 10-word vocabulary test in which the respondent is asked to identify which of five phrases supplies the correct definition of a given word (see Smith, Marsden, Hout, & Kim,2012). Notwithstanding its brevity, the test has a correlation of .71 with the Army General Classification Test"
No idea on the quality of that test (why not just use a normal IQ test?) but a correlation of .71 to IQ is worthless as a proxy measure. He also didn't provide example questions so no idea how the test functions.

Based on what he provided about the history of the survey he's basing this on, he should have access to about 68,000 observations, but only uses about 20,000. It could just be that he's using more recent data, but he doesn't explain that, which is poor reporting regardless. 

Also, he standardised his "IQ" variable to a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15 - which is what they do for IQ tests - but if my stats knowledge holds up, that would only be appropriate if the scores are normally distributed. Considering the measure only has 10 questions, and almost certainly has ceiling effects, transforming the data that way might skew the results. More importantly, there is no scientific justification to do it. It seems at best he did it for aesthetics. 

A 1st year psychology student could rip him a new asshole over this study.

LoL.

So smarter GOP folks got beaten by lower IQ Dems?

Pack it up people, he's cooked well and truly.

-PB

Ok, so when you dig deeper you find out the reason he was sacked was because he committed the unforgivable sin of stating the obvious, that there is a hereditary link with IQ and intelligence, and this may also extend to disparate groups such as race. He also attended a conference where some fellow academics shared similar ideas and for this the gathering was lambasted as racist and white supremacist, where no such views were extolled. 

Note how rather than attacking the research they attack and denigrate those whom they disagree with, ganging up and using mob rule to assassinate their characters and destroy their careers. While this may be a more efficient way of dealing with those whose research you disagree unfortunately it as at the expense free and honest intellectual inquiry, and in the end we end up with research that is based on feelings and personal ideology rather than data.

Note that while this poor young man was sacked which is now the subject of a legal battle, another Cambridge professor wrote on twitter that  “white lives don’t matter” and “abolish whiteness” , and the University responded by defending her right to opinion and promoting her to full professorship. The double standards are shocking, but not at all surprising.

Also what is your basis for stating a proxy measure correlation of 0.71 is “worthless”? From what I can see correlations between .25 and 0.95 are normal, so 0.71 seems on the high end. Maybe you just don’t like the results. 

This has to be the longest bow ever posted up on 442 to try and score a point for a side.  Truly grasping at straws.

Have a win here Rus if it makes you feel better. We can all read.

Which part is grasping at straws? Just because of bunch of rabid left wing academics fired up and got a conservative colleague sacked doesn’t invalidate the research. Cambridge also rescinded Jordan Petersons fellowship, clearly these are attacks on the personalities rather than the research and findings. The left wing academia majority dont know how to fight using research, argumentation and data, so they resort to throwing their collective weight to get people fired. Like I said its efficient but in the end its research that suffers, we end up with heavily slanted politically biased research that isn’t rigorous or accurate.

Yes I’ll have that win.

Ummm...what? What do you mean by "normal"? In what context? For what purpose? There's an enormous difference between correlates of .25 and .95. 

.25 is a correlation of two things that, maybe only sometimes, vary together, like height and intelligence. .95 is a correlation between two things that are likely to have a causal link or be the same variable measured differently. 

Page not found 

Has rusty had his account hacked? Or is he one step off Spew Anon shit?

-PB

You’ve never posted a single intelligent comment on here. You’re basically limited to one liners which appear to take on the form of  a zinger but fail to hit the mark.

In relation to IQ proxys with correlations between 0.25 and 0.95 are common. 0.71 isnt worthless by any stretch of the imagination, its not perfect but it indicates a strong correlation.

I love it when Rusty gets roasted.

I'm sorry that just doesn't make sense. Using something with a correlation of .25 to your target variable as a proxy isn't just bad science, it's completely nonsensical. 

The author himself admits that a measure of only 10 questions "is at best an imperfect measure of verbal intelligence, let alone general intelligence."

He bizarrely doesn't report the raw data of the test, only the results after they've been transformed to look like an IQ score for some reason. It would have been much more useful to see the mean scores out of 10.

I didn't see this the first time round, and the author cleverly doesn't mention it in his discussion because it would be an admission that his paper is completely pointless, but when accounting for covariates such as age and race, the difference in verbal intelligence between R's and D' is no longer statistically significant, which is telling because in a sample size that large, even tiny effects are usually found to be statistically significant. D's are more likely to be young and come from populations where their first language isn't english. Young people have less education and smaller vocabularies. And measuring the verbal intelligence of people who learned english as a second language with an english language test is obviously going to bias the results.

I wish I'd read that first, it would have saved me a lot of time.

You're a fuckwit.

-PB