Satoshi Kanazawa reports in the new Social Psychology Quarterly that the higher an adolescent's IQ, the more likely he or she is to be an atheist and a liberal as an adult. This correlation has been reported before.
What is new in this study is Kanazawa's finding that the higher a male adolescent's IQ, more the likely he is to value sexual exclusivity as an adult. The same is not true of women, who generally favor sexual exclusivity across the IQ board.
What Kanazawa does not note is that these correlations pull against one another in family life. Monogamous men are more likely to invest in their children, and their children, in turn, are more likely to succeed in life. Liberals and atheists, on the other hand, are less likely to have children in the first place. So even if Kanazawa is right that liberalism and atheism are an evolutionary advantage because they open people to new experiences, they seem to also be an evolutionary disadvantage. Monogamous men, on the other hand, seem to reap an evolutionary advantage regardless of ideology, because human babies require so much more investment than the babies of any other species.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Atheism or liberalism, as they are modern cultural phenomena, couldn't be classified as an evolutionary strategy, and so therefore could not be an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage. Certain genotypes are probably likely to contribute to these mindsets, but I think that overlapping modern cultural trends with things like evolutionary advantage is a bit short sighted.
Kanazawa reads openness to new ideas as an evolutionary advantage. Liberalism and atheism would just be modern correlates of that ancient disposition.
That is a stretch Mr. Gruntled. I am not surprised though because you seem to latch on to any idea that promotes liberalism. I know, I know, you are a centrist in your own mind.
I don't like the association between high IQ and liberalism, and like the tie to atheism even less. Nonetheless, I want to face facts. I will examine the rest of the Kanazawa paper in more detail later.
Are there studies showing that liberals and atheists who do have kids are less monogamous in agreeably monogamous relationships? I buy that open relationships are full of more liberals and atheists, but I don't know that I buy liberal men breaking their vows more often than conservatives, or that atheists cheat more than religious men. Just look at congress!
look...there is no such thing as 'evolutionary strategy' anyone who thinks that there is, doesnt understand natural selection at all.
evolution is nothing but a process; it has NO GOAL whatsoever, no 'plan' of any kind. in fact, it's the OPPOSITE of a planned out system. there is surely nothing trying to Express Itself or Perfect itself or anything like that.
there's nothing but organisms having offspring. some of the offspring will happen to possess traits which, because of external conditions, make it more likely that they will live long enough to have offspring themselves. since these traits are passed on genetically, over time these advantageous traits will tend to prevail in populations of these organnisms.
if conditions change, other, different traits will come to be expressed mmore and more often.
but at no point is there any guiding force involved. that's what bugs me about Evolutionary Biology-all this trying to tag this or that behaviour with some kind of evolutionary value...as if any being on the phenotype level cared about the future of its genotype.
Randy, the word strategy in layman's terms does imply intent, and you are right that there is no such intention of individuals or evolution to evolve species this way or that. Giraffes did not want to get longer necks, just the ones who have longer necks lived and reproduced etc.
The word strategy in evolutionary biology however is not meant to imply the willful intent, but instead is basically a way of talking about a species genotype historically. 'The giraffe's evolutionary strategy over time has produced long necks because it was longer necked individuals, with their ability to eat higher on trees than other herbivores, that survived and reproduced.' The genotype obviously dictates this strategy. Pre-giraffes with different genotypes (shorter necks) either didn't survive and reproduce (most likely) or evolved into something else.
There are genotypes and therefore behaviours that are more successful at reproduction than others. This is all gruntled is refering to with the, 'openess to new ideas is evolutionary advantageous' idea.
Anonymous says...
"This is all gruntled is refering to with the, 'openess to new ideas is evolutionary advantageous' idea."
Thanks for speaking for Beau. Did you have his permission?
He has my agreement.
I mean fair enough I guess Pete, but I felt okay saying that's what Gruntled meant because that's what Gruntled's words meant.
Oh, and Gruntled, the name anonymous doesn't imply gender ("He has...").
You are right, Anon. I was following Pete in inferring gender, but I should have been more careful
Post a Comment