Science: Religious People are Stupid, Leftists More Intelligent


Higher intelligence causes people to be left wing and reject religion as they are more highly evolved, science says. They are even less prone to adultery.

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, holds that humans more inclined to adopt “non-traditional” behaviours are more intelligent than mere traditionals. These non-traditional behaviours yield a higher chance of survival in a rapidly changing environment.

In social evolutionary terms, non-traditional behaviour includes atheism, “liberal” political leanings and (male) monogamy, he asserts.

He claims the results of the “National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health,” which has been observing a group of subjects since 1994, support his theories.

This study found that teenage subjects who did better in IQ tests tended to have “newer” patterns of behaviour when tested 7 years later – they described themselves as “very liberal” and “not at all religious” more often, as opposed to the religious and conservative, who appeared to have lower IQs.

The difference was apparently statistically significant, but not enormous, at 11 points. It is not clear if they adjusted for the noted tendency of younger adults to be more left-leaning than older adults, but the results are apparently robust enough to survive publication in a peer-reviewed journal, albeit one for psychologists.

With such incendiary conclusions, the crucial scientific admonition that correlation does not equate to causation will doubtless be drowned out amidst glib attempts by leftists and the godless to portray their beliefs as the natural consequence of higher intelligence.

Naturally, that academics and scientists tend overwhelmingly to be left wing and irreligious has nothing to do with these scholarly and impartial scientific conclusions.

    Post Comment »
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Comment by Anonymous
    09:53 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    The simple fact (if true) that "academics and scientists tend overwhelmingly to be left wing and irreligious" already seems to say something.

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:44 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    BINGO! The fact is that our smartest people are left-wing and non-religious.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:09 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    "Intellectuals" have a long history of believing all manner of stupid shit. Let's not forget that Communism, a system that any auto mechanic or bartender could have told you was utterly unworkable in the real world, was (and still is) a movement hugely appealing to intellectuals. Look at a list of prominent Communists from the 20th century, and you'll see the ranks stuffed with philosophers (Sartre and de Beauvoir), medical doctors (Che Guevara), writers (Bertold Brecht), artists (Paul Robeson) and scientists (the Rosenbergs). Most of the important figures in asian Communism (Deng Xiaopeng, Chou En-Lai, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot) were privileged young people who had been sent to get educations in France.

    So, even if this story proves something (a study of political and religious attitudes amongst teenagers and college-age people does not necessarily mean anything to the populace at large), it still doesn't necessarily mean anything.

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:59 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    IQ tests are unreliable. If you want to be consistent, then you would have to say that black people, Hispanics, women and other minorities are less intelligent as well; they generally score lower white males.

    And not only that, you would have to admit that gossip columnist Mary Vos savant (IQ 186) is more intelligent than Alber Einstein (160), Stephen Hawking (160), and nobel prize winners James Watson (119) and Francis crick (115).

    IQ tests are unreliable.

    oh and if liberals have the evolutionary edge, why do conservative muslims and hindus have more children than leftists and liberals? wouldn't that make them the evolutionary winners?

    Avatar of Gitami
    Comment by Gitami
    18:05 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Well, put individually them into separate rooms. Give them a small box, a stick, and a banana tied to the ceiling.

    I pity Stephen Hawking in that situation.

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:06 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    IQ tests are unreliable. If you want to be consistent, then you would have to say that black people, Hispanics, women and other minorities are less intelligent as well; they generally score lower white males.

    And not only that, you would have to admit that gossip columnist Mary Vos savant (IQ 186) is more intelligent than Alber Einstein (160), Stephen Hawking (160), and nobel prize winners James Watson (119) and Francis crick (115).

    IQ tests are unreliable. psychology is called a soft science for a reason.

    oh and if liberals have the evolutionary edge, why do conservative muslims and hindus have more children than leftists and liberals? wouldn't that make them the true evolutionary winners?

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:39 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    who says they aren't?

    people in third-world countries score lower too. in fact, the average IQs in a lot of African countries actually qualify as being retarded... which might explain why they're so poor.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:55 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)


    You do realize that

    1) IQ tests measure both problem solving as well as knowledge. If you can't get higher education, gets where it reflects.
    2) An IQ test must be tweaked and normalized for the population whose intelligence it's supposed to be measuring. Like hell they've done that.
    3) Actually being poor makes people score lower on the IQ scale because of missed chances to get better education, not the other way around.
    4) Good job being a racist loser.
    also 5) Other forms of intelligence (EQ, etc),punk, DO YOU KNOW THEM?

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:50 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    The IQ scores in this particular study were adjusted, although I admit the study is controversial. However, the tests they give in a certain country is given in the local language, and adjusted for their cultures.

    But you realize that modern IQ tests are almost entirely based on problem-solving, right? It's not like in the old days where they ask things like "which woman is more beautiful" and then show a white lady as the right answer, and they don't ask things like "What is Crisco." They're normalized for age and education level to get an appropriate score, since IQ is basically a comparison of a CHILD'S mental age compared to an 'average' child of a certain age. ie, a 10 year-old child with an IQ of 120 has a mental age (developmentally) of 12. IQ scores generally don't change in adulthood, but the system works in a different way, which is sort of why the concept of the IQ is flawed (to a point).

    Also, LOL. It's not racist to simply point out the results of a study in a way that offends people... I never said anything to disparage a certain race, only that people in other poor countries score poorly on IQ tests, and that the causation possibly works both ways.

    On another point, Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein are renowned for their work in physics... their actual intelligence, although EXTREMELY high (160 is something like the top 99.99th percentile) isn't what made them special, it was their ability to think about the universe. I don't think you should disparage someone with a freakishly high IQ like 186 just because they're a columnist instead of a physicist.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:56 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    *guess where

    inner grammar nazi is content now.

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:14 13/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    I wrote only the first comment, not the rest.

    yes, it's not racist to point that people of other races or of a different sex score lower. I don't think you're racist because of that, not at all.

    But you will be seen as racist if you insist these test are reliable, period. I just wanted to point out to artefact that if he feels iq tests are reliable then he must admit black people, hispanics (like me ) and women are dumber as well.

    If artefact is fine with being labeled a racist xenophobe, so be it.

    "although EXTREMELY high (160 is something like the top 99.99th percentile) isn't what made them special, it was their ability to think about the universe," which is my point, IQ tests aren't the only predictor of success and brilliance.

    "I don't think you should disparage someone with a freakishly high IQ like 186 just because they're a columnist instead of a physicist,"
    correct, but, if you're familiar with her work you will know that Mary Vos savant work leaves a lot to desire in terms of depth. I stand to my word, even though she has a higher IQ than Einstein, she is not better than Einstein.

    like I said, IQ test aren't infallible. psychology is called a soft science for a reason.

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:42 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Pretty much the truth.... religious people are not very smart when it comes down to.... why else would they need to believe in non-existent 'gods' to make their lives worthwhile?

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:46 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's pretty funny looking at all these butthurt religious people who come here.

    Child abuse is illegal correct? How many of you were raised in a religious or semi-religious home? I remember when I first found out about christianity I was told if I don't believe in this imaginary person, I would burn in hell for eternity.

    Now, for any of you who have had similar experiences like this, were any of you scared? I was terrified myself, I would have been around 7 - 9 at the time.

    Now someone please explain to me how this isn't child abuse? Telling a child they will burn forever if they refuse to believe in something that makes no sense.

    Religion is disgusting and vile, exploit the innocent, yet they call it "saving ones soul" There has been so many crimes committed in the name of "god" and some of these people get away with it.

    Has religion ever produced anything positive without causing more negative? Some say we have many hospitals because of religion, how many of the early hospitals treated mentally ill people and claimed they were "possessed by demons".

    Homosexuals weren't hated until christianity showed up, wonder why that was hmm?

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:01 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Dude you're a dumbass. A few nuts doesn't make a whole religion bad...they sure ruin the reputation that good people build, but that's quite the narrow-minded hate there. Also, homosexuality was hated in Ancient Greece before only some christians(not all) hated it. All you atheist fucks just need to take one semester of a history course that covers history predating Judaism and you will find out how wrong you all are, especially about the contributions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Then again, you might just be unreachable by reason, even more so than the idiots you're REALLY criticizing.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:53 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    A few nuts? Yeah whatever you say.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:53 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Well said, anon. I used to be like you; reasonable, fair, educated. Yet along the way, all this reasoning and calming down made me feel watered down and passionless. I was dead inside.

    So, I threw it all out and am now considering joining or starting some radical, crazy-as-fuck religious group. What religion it is, it doesn't matter. It tends to get the point across when there are bomb threats and dead abortion doctors than in arguing with the opposition on CNN or some fucktarded forum where no one will listen to you anyway.

    Well, what's there to lose? Atheists don't think I'm anything but a corpse when I'm dead. My religion would think I'll go to hell. Why not take a lot of you fuckers with me? Do I really care about the people who love you or your ideologies? Let's cut out the bullshit and see who's right after all. Quickly.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:30 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Telling a child that he'll burn in Hell for doing bad is just like telling a child to eat his broccoli or the boogey man will come and get him. It teaches the child that there are consequences for actions. Telling him that it's the right thing to do when s/he's 6 or 7 won't make him/her do anything.

    And name me one Atheist or secular group that is helping people in third world countries right now without government aid. As far as I know, a quarter of aid workers in Africa are Catholic Missionaries. And that's not even scratching the surface.

    I know what your problem is. You look at the minority of US citizens or Muslim terrosist who think like idiotic assholes who claim to follow their religion, and think that EVERYONE who follows what they do are just the same. It's the A=B=C argument, which never works. There are idiots who kill and hurt others to protect animals. I guess that means that everyone who fights for animal rights are evil, vile and immoral monsters, right? Under your logic, that would be so.

    And people have always hated Homosexuals ever since the first gay couple existed, regardless of religious beliefs. Saying that Christianity started the hate is just a ridiculous statement to make.

    Comment by Anonymous
    12:43 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    "Doctors Without Borders"
    Now fuck off.

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:07 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Docotrs without borders, as long as you have money. lol

    Damn atheists.

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:17 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    "Telling a child that he'll burn in Hell for doing bad is just like telling a child to eat his broccoli or the boogey man will come and get him. It teaches the child that there are consequences for actions."

    Yes, it is like telling a child that the boogeyman will come and get him. Both Hell and the boogey man are equally fictional. However they are not similar to encouraging the child to eat broccoli, as it has clear nutritional benefits that should be explained to him.

    I also question the validity of terrifying children with fictional stories of dangerous home invaders or being sentenced to eternal torture.

    I don't approve of lying to children at all. I don't even approve of my 5 year old nephew being suckered into the Santa myth. I was out with him the other day, and he told me he was worried because Santa Claus was watching him. He was freaked out. And because I respect his mother's opinion, I can't even tell him the truth. A child can enjoy the mythology of Santa Claus without being lied to and made to believe it is true.
    Ahem. Off-topic.

    A quarter of aid workers in AIDS-infested Africa being Catholic isn't necessarily a good thing, given the Catholic church's stance on condoms. I am highly suspect of any charity that elevates its personal belief system above the needs of the people it is supposedly helping. And MANY Christian charities most certainly do. For example, the Salvation Army's Christmas gift donations. Salvo volunteers go through all the donated gifts to remove any 'inappropriate material' - like Harry Potter or Chronicles of Narnia books. Screw the kids who would love to receive them, those books are the Devil's work!
    Secular charities are focused solely on the welfare of those they help. And atheists who volunteer do so purely because they want to help, not because the expect some seat in Heaven for doing it.

    Comment by Anonymous
    21:44 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Even though Atheist aid groups do help, they are just as corruptible as religious groups for one reason: cynicism. People will always look at any bad thing that happens, and then use that to say that it is all bad. Even if the good outweighs the bad, people will still try to look for bad things to say about people or groups. Whether someone is religious or not, in the end, has nothing to do with how a person or group thinks.

    This fight won't end until everyone stops acting pessimistically.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:25 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    You were scared because your parents were idiots, and you were a pussy.

    If you learned more about your religion, you should've had better judgment about it rather than listening to Bill Maher.

    Avatar of Callysto
    Comment by Callysto
    13:08 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wow really? Scared? Says the individual posting anonymously....

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:34 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Didn't you know? Everyone is a big man on the internet lol :)

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:48 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    This article is misleading since it said liberals only tend to be smarter than social conservatives. It's actually been shown that mormons score the highest iq than any other religious people too.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:35 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Well thats nice.

    I have had 12 years of my childhood ruined by, constant non-stop bullying, I have been extremly suicidal for a large portion of my life

    I don't drink, smoke or do drugs, I'm a very polite and nice person and I have found praying to God to be extremly helpful to my life, after many years of thinking I came to the conclustion the goal is to be close to God, not the church.

    Of course there are very nice people in most churchs if you don't go to the bible bashing othodox ones.

    I have extremly good grades considering I was bullied all the way though school, I have learnt to combind my religion with science, and I love science it solves so many problems.

    Only to have my believes shoved in my face and to be told I'm an idiot/retard who is less intelligent that everyone else.

    Thanks, thanks a lot, you really made me feel better about myself, you really added to the science/religion debate, but allow me to put this foward, irregular numbers don't make sense, but their always true, shaming lanuage isn't an arguement, its to detract from it and change the subject.

    And also, when we take god out of the equation, the only thing which is important, is yourself.

    But I guess i'm too retarded to make an intelligent answer and should go back to isolation.

    Avatar of Miroku74
    Comment by Miroku74
    17:48 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Don't let it bother you so much, Anon. ^^

    Some of the people posting here need to get back to picking the much more intelligent fleas off each other back at the cave.

    Avatar of npal
    Comment by npal
    07:26 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    This study is obviously flawed, as I can easily spot equally idiotic individuals from both sides in this thread, in abundant numbers, too.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:06 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    everyone is stupid. Religious people are willing to admit that. Atheists, however, make up the rules of Science to make themselves feel better and to justify their own existences.

    Atheists have unwarranted self-importance because they believe in God less than everyone else. Other than that, they have produced nothing else other than individuals with big heads filled with hot air.

    Religious people, at least, have built schools, hospitals and orphanages. They didn't need a proof of a God to do those things. They sponsored science and contributed to the control of population in terms of numbers and ideas through Holy Wars. That hasn't changed for the last few thousand years. I don't think it'll change anytime soon.

    See, how stupid I'm acting? Now look at a pretentious Atheist and see how he claims how smart he is. On the Internet. With no proof at all.

    TL;DR- Atheists should be scrutinized more because they have no excuse to be stupid.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:03 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    "Naturally, that academics and scientists tend overwhelmingly to be left wing and irreligious has nothing to do with these scholarly and impartial scientific conclusions."

    What an unhappy comment, when even if we exclude the possibility that academics and scientists are actually people with higher IQ than the average, your text also failed to mention that the supposed reasons behind such conclusions would it be that more inteligent people are more likely to question the traditions. Basically, instead "be smart is to be atheist, monogamic, etc", a consequence of a higher intelligence it's to question the traditions before decide to follow them or not. Once you question it, you do are prone to stop follow it, but it is not a necessary conclusion and the fact that the word "prone" was used exemplify this uncertainty.

    It is not the first time that I see Sankaku Complex post crippled news from somewhere trying to get a very biased opinion because the responsible to post it in here just didn't like what he saw in the original. That's no way to act to someone who wishes to criticize someone else partiality... even if a the critic is subtle.

    Avatar of Callysto
    Comment by Callysto
    13:09 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Your post holds no meaning when it's done anonymously.

    Comment by Anonymous
    06:58 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    lol It only survived to publication because it said exactly what they like to hear, otherwise they might never take the word of a psychologist of any variety.
    Also, its easy to say that religious people are stupid when the majority of people are affiliated with some religion and the majority is stupid.

    Still, by the Schrobby school of logic, some other stupid shit should be true as well...For instance, opinion = fact, fact = the truth, therefore opinion = the truth. That said, your logic is flawed because the people you say believe in pure bullshit are merely expressing their opinions and personal truths. QED bitch...don't spout baseless, nonsensical bullshit.

    Still IMO, none of the "reasonable" atheists are willing to accept reason in actuality. You guys are just as stubborn as the people you hate (and the reason you hate them is probably something common among theists and atheists alike). Opinion really does equate to fact for you guys just as much as it does for them so leave them alone and shut the fuck up.

    Avatar of Ota-Kool
    Comment by Ota-Kool
    07:24 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Is that george bush? thank god he's not a president anymore a murdering scum who started a war by this father and son also when he's a texas governor he had executed 150+ people don't think clemency is his vocabulary hope their son won't become future US president, Anybody but them(bush clan)!

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:16 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    I don't believe this should be translated to political leftwing and rightwing. (northwest europe here). Except for the name christian there is no religion left in our right wing parties. You also can't say that leftist is more intelligent in politics here because a lot of people with brains voted to the more realstic rightwing in response of the unrealistic leftwing politicians believing in utopias.
    Fanatics or extremists can either be narrow minded left or right or religious or whatever.

    So, if you really want to make two groups, it would probably be better to say broad-minded vs narrow minded people.

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:33 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    conclusion the communist is much evolved than capitalism

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:39 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)


    ONLY ANIME AND MANGA .........AND lolis

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:01 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    "but the results are apparently robust enough to survive publication in a peer-reviewed journal, albeit one for psychologists."

    As opposed to what? One for statisticians?

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:51 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)


    Comment by Anonymous
    08:23 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    As if there was a need for this test... But it's nice to have the liberty of saying "according to science, you're stupid".

    Avatar of comorbid
    Comment by comorbid
    13:21 11/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    { cout << lameReligiouslyThemedJokeAboutOnanism << endl; }

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:48 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Just a bunch of letters on a web page, does anyone really "believe" they will change anything with that? Change the world with what you do not what you type...

    Avatar of Common Sense
    Comment by Common Sense
    07:45 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    If the comment comes from non-religious person, it will be logical, straightforward, and most likely offensive towards those that are religious.

    If the comment comes from a religious person, it will be an answer that usual follows the "My belief in -religion- is unexplainable, but true" kind of deal.

    I just want to say, fuck you both. You can be as logical as you want. You can be as faithful as you want. Guess what? Both haven't proven the existence or non-existence of god. Just shut the hell up. If you express your opinion on the internet, it will most likely be because you want to, and I use this lightly, convert people into believe what you believe. If you really want to convert people into believing or disbelieving religion, then prove god does or doesn't exist. You can SAY religion caused wars. You can SAY religion gave hope to the unfortunate. But ultimately, it's because humans are the most conforming beings on this planet. Whether conforming is the right thing or not, you have to admit that shit only gets more popular because it already is popular.

    Tell me something. If you created free-willed "objects", what would you do with them? Would you be self centered and make them suck your cock every single fucking day? Or would you be carefree and just watch them suck each others cocks? Neither of these is the "right" answer. Just watch the fucking news and look at how many fucked up people there are in this world. God could possibly do something self centered. God could also be a curious person who decided to put us on a giant sphere.

    If you take the word "cock" and "shit" literally, then suck your own cock and eat shit you dumb fuck of a human being.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:27 15/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    well...suck my cock then.And eat my shit since you're at it.

    Avatar of Zets89
    Comment by Zets89
    14:48 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Also Nazis were non-religious, aimrite?

    Avatar of a lolicon
    Comment by a lolicon
    16:12 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Perhaps some of them were. Their leader was very much a catholic though. Your point?

    I mean, how many non-religious people would speak like this:

    From "Mein Kampf":

    Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord

    Comment by Anonymous
    16:41 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Of course one must wonder where he read about eliminating Jews is the work of the Lord :p I detect psychopathology there... you know... hearing voices in your head and all that isn't that healthy.

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:41 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Not sure, I'm not Catholic :p

    Avatar of a lolicon
    Comment by a lolicon
    17:26 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    The view of the Catholic Church of the time was (or perhaps it still is?) that the Jews were guilty of deicide, was it not? People have gone on killing sprees for far less.

    Avatar of Zets89
    Comment by Zets89
    14:39 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Liberals are not leftits, do you heard of "neoliberalism"? And i'm not a fukken leftitst and i i'm not religious nor believe in god. And i don't believe the commies (real commies) in my place are more intelligent than me.

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:47 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Hate to tell you this, but left and liberal are the same thing, it means people who think that socialism to a degree is not a bad thing and a few other things that I won't go into detail with here.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:40 12/03/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Old new's and as other have stated the right-wing believers will never acknowledge it any way..

    Post Comment »


Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments