Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 1, 2010
News Two Out of Three Ain't Bad
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:40 AM
Liberals and atheists have higher IQs, according to a new study.
Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs.... Participants who said they were atheists had an average IQ of 103 in adolescence, while adults who said they were religious averaged 97, the study found. Atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion," Bailey said... The study found that young adults who said they were "very conservative" had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were "very liberal" averaged 106.
Sadly for me researchers also found one other trait—but only in males—is linked to higher IQs: sexual exclusivity.
Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women. This makes sense, because having one partner has always been advantageous to women, even thousands of years ago, meaning exclusivity is not a "new" preference. For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates.
But smarter guys, against-the-grain types, have just one. Because monogamy goes against the grain for men. Or it did. I would argue that honest non-monogamy is against-the-grainier these days than sexual exclusivity or, failing that (as so many monogamous folks do), maintaining the appearance of sexual exclusivity.
1
I would argue that honest non-monogamy is against-the-grainier these days than sexual exclusivity or, failing that (as so many monogamous folks do), maintaining the appearance of sexual exclusivity.
And I would argue that you're just reacting to the news (that non-monogamous men aren't smart) like you're taking it personally. That's some serious justifying going on there.
4
I'm with @1 on this one. I had to read your last paragraph twice because I couldn't believe you said it. You would argue on the basis of - what? That you just "know"? Like the religious types just know there's a God? I don't mind that you want to argue, just, you know, argue. Just stating that you disagree is not an argument.
5
Good Morning Dan,
I recommend "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters" by Satoshi Kanazawa & Alan Wilson. A fascinating read. Among other eye-openers they contend monogamy benefits men and polygamy benefits women.
I recommend "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters" by Satoshi Kanazawa & Alan Wilson. A fascinating read. Among other eye-openers they contend monogamy benefits men and polygamy benefits women.
6
This guy made a poor attempt at evolutionary sexual psychology. Women have always had a benefit of multiple partners. Think of it this way. If a women mades with 5 men her chances of the baby being hers is 100%. If a man mates with 5 women and they all get pregnant they can still all have not carried his child if they were with other men. There is an evolutionary benefit to men that control women to be monogamous with them, there is no evolutionary benefit for women to actually be monogamous however.
Sexual exclusivity has always been a struggle between men and women within the species. Men do best if they have multiple mates but far and above multiple mates in importance is the requirement that the women are not mating with others. A women gets only a very small benefit to her changes to pass on her genes by making sure her mate stays exclusive to her.
Sexual exclusivity has always been a struggle between men and women within the species. Men do best if they have multiple mates but far and above multiple mates in importance is the requirement that the women are not mating with others. A women gets only a very small benefit to her changes to pass on her genes by making sure her mate stays exclusive to her.
8
@6,
Women have SOME evolutionary benefit to being monogamous. They still need resources and protection, typically of their mate (well, cavewomen did, anyway) and if the male mate finds out the woman is non-monogamous, she and her offspring could be up shit creek.
I'd revise it to say that women have a huge evolutionary benefit if they can simultaneously convince their mate that they're monogamous, while also mating with as many other "good-gene" men as possible. But there's always that delicate balance there. Too many non-monogamous partners is likely to tip off the cuckolded mate that something fishy is going on. It's a balance between having more partners vs. ability to convince the cheated-on mate of fidelity. Women who could do both equally well had the greatest advantage.
Women have SOME evolutionary benefit to being monogamous. They still need resources and protection, typically of their mate (well, cavewomen did, anyway) and if the male mate finds out the woman is non-monogamous, she and her offspring could be up shit creek.
I'd revise it to say that women have a huge evolutionary benefit if they can simultaneously convince their mate that they're monogamous, while also mating with as many other "good-gene" men as possible. But there's always that delicate balance there. Too many non-monogamous partners is likely to tip off the cuckolded mate that something fishy is going on. It's a balance between having more partners vs. ability to convince the cheated-on mate of fidelity. Women who could do both equally well had the greatest advantage.
9
This saddens me to see passed around by the interwebs by skeptics. The difference is small (what was the standard error?), IQ is not the best predictor of intelligence, these could be environmental differences, not genetic, heritable ones (and thus probably not evolutionarily relevant) and Kanazawa is NOT the most well-respected evolutionary psychologist around. Grain of salt, people, grain of salt.
10
@1
And reacting to that also. Pretty much leaves him out of the playing field. And for a fellow evolutionary/atheist to be saying it, must be harsh.
For men, on the other hand, sexual exclusivity goes against the grain evolutionarily. With a goal of spreading genes, early men had multiple mates.
And reacting to that also. Pretty much leaves him out of the playing field. And for a fellow evolutionary/atheist to be saying it, must be harsh.
12
I wonder if the study distinguished between people who consciously, deliberately - and presumably openly to their partner(s) - CHOSE a lifestyle of nonmonogamy, polyamory, etc. and people who simply indicated they didn't value monogamy on some Likert-scale question or another. My guess is they didn't. This stacks the deck in favor of monogamy-as-lifestyle correlating with intelligence. But I guess we'll have to wait for the article to see the details.
Urgutha, as usual, has a good pithy argument. Nothing to add there.
Urgutha, as usual, has a good pithy argument. Nothing to add there.
13
This not unlike Dan's solipsistic pit bull theories. He picks out some science here and there that agrees with him, and then whenever there's a result he doesn't like, blithely ignore it and claims the opposite is true. Why? Because he says so, because conforms with his emotional prejudices.
And his all-knowing anecdotal evidence. Got to give the anecdotal evidence it's due, right?
I would suggest that you should either ignore science, or at least distance yourself from scientific thinking, or else be willing to accept scientific conclusions that you like equally with scientific conclusions you don't like.
And his all-knowing anecdotal evidence. Got to give the anecdotal evidence it's due, right?
I would suggest that you should either ignore science, or at least distance yourself from scientific thinking, or else be willing to accept scientific conclusions that you like equally with scientific conclusions you don't like.
14
I suspect the first two have to do with education, rather than intelligence. You are more likely to become a liberal atheist if you have higher education; and to get higher education, you usually have to have higher IQ.
15
@8 You do bring up some good points that I didn't really have space to elaborate on but there are a few thing to consider. The penalty to women for having multiple partners comes from the males in their life putting those penalties into place.
Also you need to disconnect monogomy vs. non-monogomy with the perception of those two things. Remember that a cavewoman could have been punished or killed for being non-monogamous despite the fact that the man could have been wrong. History is full of murdered women accused of cheating who didn't do it.
So women's brains evolved to give the perception of monogamy and to use social and psychological pressure to appear monogamous whether or not they actually are. The women's brain developed in a way to guard her regardless of the actions of an individual of her gene-line.
Also you brought up a great point about "good-gene" men vs. others. There has been several posting on SLOG about this very issue. There was an article about how women while ovulating find men more attractive who have a more masculined facial structure. There are many genius ways women have mated with many men for social or resource reasons and found ways to screen out the sperm of less genetically successful men. This included women who have long term partners like husbands that conceive when they cheat but never with their own long term partner.
Also you need to disconnect monogomy vs. non-monogomy with the perception of those two things. Remember that a cavewoman could have been punished or killed for being non-monogamous despite the fact that the man could have been wrong. History is full of murdered women accused of cheating who didn't do it.
So women's brains evolved to give the perception of monogamy and to use social and psychological pressure to appear monogamous whether or not they actually are. The women's brain developed in a way to guard her regardless of the actions of an individual of her gene-line.
Also you brought up a great point about "good-gene" men vs. others. There has been several posting on SLOG about this very issue. There was an article about how women while ovulating find men more attractive who have a more masculined facial structure. There are many genius ways women have mated with many men for social or resource reasons and found ways to screen out the sperm of less genetically successful men. This included women who have long term partners like husbands that conceive when they cheat but never with their own long term partner.
16
Dan, did you read the actual paper or just the half-assed press coverage? Kanazawa makes a very clear distinction between "evolutionarily novel" and "experientially novel"; to test the hypothesis, "against the grain" needs to be put in this context.
I can't vouch for the quality of Kanazawa's scholarship, but the article is a fascinating and entertaining read. Liberal atheists (like yours truly) who are smugly passing this around the interwebs should note that a more-acurate (but certainly less publicity-grabbing) title for this article would have been "Why Intelligent People Are So Weird".
I can't vouch for the quality of Kanazawa's scholarship, but the article is a fascinating and entertaining read. Liberal atheists (like yours truly) who are smugly passing this around the interwebs should note that a more-acurate (but certainly less publicity-grabbing) title for this article would have been "Why Intelligent People Are So Weird".
17
As much as I want that study to say what you are saying it really doesn't. First that is most certainly within the error range for the study. Second IQ is not exactly a precise measure of intelligence. Sure a person with a 150 IQ is probably smarter than one with a 50, but 103 vs 97 not so much.
18
@5 and regarding satoshi kanazawa in general...
the "beautiful people have more girls" effect doesn't exist. his statistics were sloppy and wrong:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/res…
unfortunately, the same should probably be assumed about most of his work.
the "beautiful people have more girls" effect doesn't exist. his statistics were sloppy and wrong:
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/res…
unfortunately, the same should probably be assumed about most of his work.
19
Perhaps men with higher IQs are also more smug, this repels women, and thus the high IQ man has fewer opportunities to cheat?
20
(well, to clarify, the "beautiful people / girls" effect might exist, but kanazawa doesn't successfully show that it does.)
21
@15,
I completely agree. There's tons of really interesting research out there on the evolutionary social psychology of mate selection and mate poaching (David Buss from U-Texas, Austin http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/…
is probably the most prolific)
Human women have indeed evolved lots of effective ways to be both promiscuous AND monogamous-appearing: Human females are one of very few animals who present almost NO physical evidence of ovulation, thus, men don't really know when a woman is at her most fertile or not (many women don't really know themselves, either). Human female orgasms are more intense when with a new or relatively unfamiliar partner, increasing the likelihood of sperm passing through the cervix. The studies you described, of human females showing attraction towards different physical and chemical features of males depending on where she is in her menstrual cycle.
And then there's the male side of it. Raping "enemy" women during wars and conflicts. Using conflict to kill and maim as many enemy males as possible, not just soldiers either, but ALL "enemy" males (i.e., competition) in order to keep their genes out of the pool. Tightly controlling resources and security of one's mate to try limiting infidelity. Killing or intimidating one's own mate if infidelity is suspected. Even killing or refusing to provide resources and security to children if infidelity is suspected.
It's all really fascinating, to be sure... and also a clear sign that humans aren't really all that "advanced" compared to other animals. Other than thumbs and brains, we're just part of the rest of the flora and fauna.
I completely agree. There's tons of really interesting research out there on the evolutionary social psychology of mate selection and mate poaching (David Buss from U-Texas, Austin http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/…
is probably the most prolific)
Human women have indeed evolved lots of effective ways to be both promiscuous AND monogamous-appearing: Human females are one of very few animals who present almost NO physical evidence of ovulation, thus, men don't really know when a woman is at her most fertile or not (many women don't really know themselves, either). Human female orgasms are more intense when with a new or relatively unfamiliar partner, increasing the likelihood of sperm passing through the cervix. The studies you described, of human females showing attraction towards different physical and chemical features of males depending on where she is in her menstrual cycle.
And then there's the male side of it. Raping "enemy" women during wars and conflicts. Using conflict to kill and maim as many enemy males as possible, not just soldiers either, but ALL "enemy" males (i.e., competition) in order to keep their genes out of the pool. Tightly controlling resources and security of one's mate to try limiting infidelity. Killing or intimidating one's own mate if infidelity is suspected. Even killing or refusing to provide resources and security to children if infidelity is suspected.
It's all really fascinating, to be sure... and also a clear sign that humans aren't really all that "advanced" compared to other animals. Other than thumbs and brains, we're just part of the rest of the flora and fauna.
23
Success with "honest non-monogamy" takes more honesty, intelligence and maturity than "honest monogamy" and much more than "dishonest monogamy" or "dishonest non-monogamy".
In this study, I'm betting the researchers equate "sexual exclusivity" with "not cheating" and didn't even ask whether any non-exclusivity was consensual. The male/female divergence is easily explained by the fact that among the 18-28 year olds sampled, the women are just more mature than the men. If that hypothesis is correct, a study of 28-38 year olds ought to show more even results between genders.
In this study, I'm betting the researchers equate "sexual exclusivity" with "not cheating" and didn't even ask whether any non-exclusivity was consensual. The male/female divergence is easily explained by the fact that among the 18-28 year olds sampled, the women are just more mature than the men. If that hypothesis is correct, a study of 28-38 year olds ought to show more even results between genders.
24
Satoshi Kanazawa is unfortunately completely bonkers.
"Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter. What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost. Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running (Hillary Clinton, ed.)".
"Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter. What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost. Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running (Hillary Clinton, ed.)".
25
@19, "Perhaps men with higher IQs are also more smug, this repels women, and thus the high IQ man has fewer opportunities to cheat?"
Men with higher IQ's are less sure of themselves (this has been studied) and tend to be less smug. Being more smug doesn't repel women--it attracts them (this has also been studied).
Amazingly, the two errors in your justification cancel each other out and your overall thesis is correct.
Men with higher IQ's are less sure of themselves (this has been studied) and tend to be less smug. Being more smug doesn't repel women--it attracts them (this has also been studied).
Amazingly, the two errors in your justification cancel each other out and your overall thesis is correct.
26
As a liberal atheist who's been exclusive to my first and only partner (now wife) for a quarter century, I want to point out that all my extra IQ points haven't seemed to help me at all in life...
27
There are always exceptions to the rule...and SLOG seems to be full of them...slutty, brainy, liberal athiests are a dime a dozen around here.
28
So, which is the chicken and which is the egg? Do these traits "cause" higher IQs, or are people with higher IQs drawn to atheism/liberalism/etc.?
29
@18 & 20 danny,
Good that you clarified. I doubt Kanazawa's work is "sloppy and wrong". His data deductions are controversial but peer reviewed.
@24 mackro
Kanazawa isn't "completely bonkers". See above. Your snippet is from Wikipedia, not a very good source.
@21 Urgurtha
Sounds like you've read Kanazawa or at least some evolutionary psychology. Fascinating what you wrote.
Finally, the discipline of evolutionary psychology is fraught with peril. Truthful and scientific conclusions can certainly ruffle more than a few advocates' feathers. I admire Dan's candor that some conclusions regarding human behavior and intelligence may be most disconcerting.
Good that you clarified. I doubt Kanazawa's work is "sloppy and wrong". His data deductions are controversial but peer reviewed.
@24 mackro
Kanazawa isn't "completely bonkers". See above. Your snippet is from Wikipedia, not a very good source.
@21 Urgurtha
Sounds like you've read Kanazawa or at least some evolutionary psychology. Fascinating what you wrote.
Finally, the discipline of evolutionary psychology is fraught with peril. Truthful and scientific conclusions can certainly ruffle more than a few advocates' feathers. I admire Dan's candor that some conclusions regarding human behavior and intelligence may be most disconcerting.
30
@23
Who says, you? Wait, lemme guess, you're in an honest non-monogamous relationship. What a coincidence!
@26
LOL - great post :-)
@27
Slutty, liberal atheists sounds about right. Brainy? Not so much, unless your standards are pretty low. See the dude above about talking about the "human women" - heh heh..
Who says, you? Wait, lemme guess, you're in an honest non-monogamous relationship. What a coincidence!
@26
LOL - great post :-)
@27
Slutty, liberal atheists sounds about right. Brainy? Not so much, unless your standards are pretty low. See the dude above about talking about the "human women" - heh heh..
33
Dan, you're a really good writer, and your advice is usually spot on, but this article is crap.
Your a priori assumption that IQ = virtue is so inherently flawed six ways to Sunday, I don't know where to begin. I invite you to hang around a few mensa get-togethers to get the first taste of the many holes in it. Other examples are legion. Nothing wrong w/ high-IQ folks, partied w/ a few, had sex w/ a few, friends w/ a few. Trouble is, I can say the same about the average, even lower-IQ folks. And the dispersion of the idioacracy, ass-hattery crowd runs up & down the IQ spectrum as well.
Plus, your writing indicates you are quite aware that there are many different ways of human apprehension beyond IQ. That you set these aside shows a willful ignorance that is, frankly, beneath you. It is quite obvious you wish to elevate two out of three of your characteristics, atheist, liberal & non-monogomous. Are you that insecure? Please, tell me you're not. While I am not atheist, (and would happily discuss the subject w/ you), I certainly have no problem w/ you over it. Whatever you want to think/believe/feel is great, I just don't like the way people act when they are insecure and get defensive about their thoughts/beliefs/feelings, because that is one of the greatest causes behind much human suffering.
Your a priori assumption that IQ = virtue is so inherently flawed six ways to Sunday, I don't know where to begin. I invite you to hang around a few mensa get-togethers to get the first taste of the many holes in it. Other examples are legion. Nothing wrong w/ high-IQ folks, partied w/ a few, had sex w/ a few, friends w/ a few. Trouble is, I can say the same about the average, even lower-IQ folks. And the dispersion of the idioacracy, ass-hattery crowd runs up & down the IQ spectrum as well.
Plus, your writing indicates you are quite aware that there are many different ways of human apprehension beyond IQ. That you set these aside shows a willful ignorance that is, frankly, beneath you. It is quite obvious you wish to elevate two out of three of your characteristics, atheist, liberal & non-monogomous. Are you that insecure? Please, tell me you're not. While I am not atheist, (and would happily discuss the subject w/ you), I certainly have no problem w/ you over it. Whatever you want to think/believe/feel is great, I just don't like the way people act when they are insecure and get defensive about their thoughts/beliefs/feelings, because that is one of the greatest causes behind much human suffering.
34
Perhaps the smart guys tend to be sexually exclusive because they have no choice.
Having graduated with a degree in science and engineering, my impression is that it's much harder for engineers to get laid in college than it is for English majors, musicians, etc. And never mind members of athletic teams.
A bit down the road, tech people get paychecks and magically become able to find a partner. But they are less likely to be the object of interest to women looking for a quick fling.
Having graduated with a degree in science and engineering, my impression is that it's much harder for engineers to get laid in college than it is for English majors, musicians, etc. And never mind members of athletic teams.
A bit down the road, tech people get paychecks and magically become able to find a partner. But they are less likely to be the object of interest to women looking for a quick fling.
35
@33
He writes well and gives good sex advice, but he's not as smart as you believe. You've been duped.
He writes well and gives good sex advice, but he's not as smart as you believe. You've been duped.
36
@29 You are right that the conclusions can stir up controversy but there is another bias in the opposite direction. I have read quite a bit about evolutionary psychology and I notice a definite bias to controversy. It depends on what you are reading of course. Pop-sci books will leads towards controversy to sell copies and the peer reviewed stuff will be more neutral.
You do have to admit that when someone makes a wild claim like saying that women are biologically incapable of being monogamous it will turn some heads and sell some copies whether or not it is strictly true. A great book I really like is "The Red Queen" which is more reasoned and neutral than "Sperm Wars" but the latter is still an interesting read.
You do have to admit that when someone makes a wild claim like saying that women are biologically incapable of being monogamous it will turn some heads and sell some copies whether or not it is strictly true. A great book I really like is "The Red Queen" which is more reasoned and neutral than "Sperm Wars" but the latter is still an interesting read.
37
Why are the conclusions of this article being trumpeted by CNN before the study has even been published? I was going to ask why so many people were loftily demanding what the error was instead of just going and reading the article, then I realized it's not even published yet. So let's just hold off on bashing or celebrating it for a few minutes until we can see whether it's any good. You aren't going to take CNN's word for it, are you?
38
Oops. My mistake, here it is:
http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/0190…
http://spq.sagepub.com/pap.dtl
Those affiliated with universities probably have access.
http://spq.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/0190…
http://spq.sagepub.com/pap.dtl
Those affiliated with universities probably have access.
39
Isn't finding out that liberals and atheists are smarter than conservatives and theists just called "going to college?"
40
peer review, like anything people do, is fallible.
most disciplines are, quite rightly, concerned with the theories, mechanisms, and predictions they'd like to make about their own problems---not the statistics they need to use in order to do that. without dedicated statisticians available to review everything, mistakes sometimes get made.
unfortunately, a juicy "result" like kanazawa's gets picked up by the popular press and reported simply as "studies have shown..."
peer review is more of a minimum threshold for what's worth your time to read. it's not an absolute threshold for truth.
most disciplines are, quite rightly, concerned with the theories, mechanisms, and predictions they'd like to make about their own problems---not the statistics they need to use in order to do that. without dedicated statisticians available to review everything, mistakes sometimes get made.
unfortunately, a juicy "result" like kanazawa's gets picked up by the popular press and reported simply as "studies have shown..."
peer review is more of a minimum threshold for what's worth your time to read. it's not an absolute threshold for truth.
41
Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with "unconventional" philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be "ways to communicate to everyone that you're pretty smart," he said.
----------------------------------------
It's a vaguely interesting study with some flawed conclusions - especially the quote above, which, more than anything else here, is the bait that made this article blog-fodder, sounding a lot like Sarah Palin's stereotypes of "latte-liberals" who don't live in "real America".
Countless studies have already shown that a person's educational level correlates with liberalism and atheism - the fact that they should also correlate with IQ should surprise no one, especially given that the people writing IQ tests tend to be from this same demographic.
The "monogamy" thing is the only really interesting part about it, and it's a shame that they don't define how the test asked the question (seems kind of important). If they just asked that outright, it seems like you'd get the following:
YES = I am in a significant monogamous relationship and either faithful or unwilling to admit that I am unfaithful.
NO = I am in a significant nonmonogamous relationship OR I am single/dating multiple people OR I an in a monogamous relationship whose bounds I am violating.
It seems like quite a stretch to say that the NO case is culturally more "unconventional" than the YES case, then when you apply that logic to the rest of the conclusion, the rest starts to fall apart too. As for liberalism- people in big cities where they are forced to mingle with others tend to be liberal, and people who live in more rural areas are more conservative - there's nothing "unconventional" about that.
More...
----------------------------------------
It's a vaguely interesting study with some flawed conclusions - especially the quote above, which, more than anything else here, is the bait that made this article blog-fodder, sounding a lot like Sarah Palin's stereotypes of "latte-liberals" who don't live in "real America".
Countless studies have already shown that a person's educational level correlates with liberalism and atheism - the fact that they should also correlate with IQ should surprise no one, especially given that the people writing IQ tests tend to be from this same demographic.
The "monogamy" thing is the only really interesting part about it, and it's a shame that they don't define how the test asked the question (seems kind of important). If they just asked that outright, it seems like you'd get the following:
YES = I am in a significant monogamous relationship and either faithful or unwilling to admit that I am unfaithful.
NO = I am in a significant nonmonogamous relationship OR I am single/dating multiple people OR I an in a monogamous relationship whose bounds I am violating.
It seems like quite a stretch to say that the NO case is culturally more "unconventional" than the YES case, then when you apply that logic to the rest of the conclusion, the rest starts to fall apart too. As for liberalism- people in big cities where they are forced to mingle with others tend to be liberal, and people who live in more rural areas are more conservative - there's nothing "unconventional" about that.
42
@41: Stuckie, I just finished reading the original article. The question was, ‘‘Using a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means not important at all and 10 means extremely important, how important do you think each of the following elements is for a successful marriage or serious committed relationship? Being faithful—that is, not cheating on your partner by seeing other people.’’
It's a problematic question, because it uses the words "faithful" and "cheating." If I were in a committed and open non-monogamous relationship, I wouldn't know how to answer the question.
It's a problematic question, because it uses the words "faithful" and "cheating." If I were in a committed and open non-monogamous relationship, I wouldn't know how to answer the question.
43
@42 Thanks for bringing that up - anidst all the hubbub , I couldn't actually FIND that specific information! Even so, though, it's problematic in a few ways, the least of which would be consensually nonmonogamous couples, idealistic singles, and lying cheaters. Based on those 2 pejorative words, the study essentially negates itself - if (intended) monogamy is considered a societal norm (the way the phrases "being faithful" and "not cheating" imply, then the results have no clear theme, and the narrative they're pushing is false.
44
The study is not good science. It is offensive nonsense on many levels. A few of these:
1. IQ is a garbage measurement, and a systematically racist and classist one.
2. Beliefs are not genetic, nor are sexual behaviors like exclusivity.
3. Correlation is not causation, so the findings do not, as the article claims, "show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be."
4. The idea that people choose their sexual behaviors because they, for some reason, want their genes to be passed along ("evolutionary psychology") represents a profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
5. To interpret the findings, the article quotes James Bailey, a professor of Leadership at GWU's School of Business whose scholarship is on "managerial and executive development." (He is quoted making such gibberish statements as "The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," as though liberalism and atheism were universal, atemporal concepts that could even be evaluated meaningfully in relation to early human societies.)
If the study shows anything at all, it simply shows a couple more ways that IQ as a measurement is systematically biased. That's all.
1. IQ is a garbage measurement, and a systematically racist and classist one.
2. Beliefs are not genetic, nor are sexual behaviors like exclusivity.
3. Correlation is not causation, so the findings do not, as the article claims, "show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be."
4. The idea that people choose their sexual behaviors because they, for some reason, want their genes to be passed along ("evolutionary psychology") represents a profound misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
5. To interpret the findings, the article quotes James Bailey, a professor of Leadership at GWU's School of Business whose scholarship is on "managerial and executive development." (He is quoted making such gibberish statements as "The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," as though liberalism and atheism were universal, atemporal concepts that could even be evaluated meaningfully in relation to early human societies.)
If the study shows anything at all, it simply shows a couple more ways that IQ as a measurement is systematically biased. That's all.
In an effort to keep
the
discourse respectful and on topic, commenting on this item is
available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (43) RSS