Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Eurocentrism

jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 1:08:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You all know about the Protestant work ethic thesis that posits the rise of protestantism led to the rise of capitalism which in turn led to great increases in standard of living in certain countries.

A lot of people dislike this thesis. But, it seems to, at the basic level, make sense. Northern Europe is a lot nicer than Southern Europe with more social trust and social capital than southern Europe. Of course, Northern Europe is much more protestant than the Catholic southern Europe. Also, Northern Europe, despite being known for its welfare states, actually has smaller welfare states and more pro market policies than the failing Southern Europe.

(Link for this here: http://www.american.com...)

Still, the thesis has a number of problems. For one, any country that has moved towards a free market economic model has experienced rapid growth. And, it is certainly not true that only protestant countries have moved towards a free market model. But, this doesn't necessarily contradict the theory as it is possible that Protestantism led to the initial rise of capitalism but then other countries followed suit once they saw how effective it was at building wealth.

Murray Rothbard also has an interesting critique in which he argues that capitalism was born in medieval, Catholic Italy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

However, I think there is at least something to the case. It certainly works better than other theories to explain the rise of Europe. Indeed, the best book on this is The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes. It is true that this book takes a Eurocentric view of the world, but, as Landes points out, this is appropriate as Europe was unique in its incredible development. Landes also efffectively destroys anti European theories that posit colonialism accounts for the European miracle (and some other anti Europe theories).

The key thing that should be noted is that there was something special about Europe that led to the incredible innovation and development that started there (particularly in the north). I think Religion played a part here. So did IQ, other cultural factors, climate, and general attitude towards innovation. Acknowledging that Europe was indeed special and far ahead of the rest of the world in innovation isn't Eurocentric... it is simply accurate.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 1:25:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think you'd like the book:

A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World by Gregory Clark which has a similar conclusion.

One problem I have with the free-market hypothesis is that for one I think the Heritage foundation is kind of bias in its economic ranking. For example, Singapore is ranked #2, yet 60% of is gdp is run by government-owned corporations. Also, if you base the stats not on GDP vs. economic freedom, but GDP growth vs. economic freedom, the correlation between the two isn't that great. Also, Chile has a pretty free market but while it has decent gdp growth, it isn't spectacular. I'd say that free markets are an important factor in economic growth, but there are other factors that are important as well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 7:01:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 1:25:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I think you'd like the book:

A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World by Gregory Clark which has a similar conclusion.

One problem I have with the free-market hypothesis is that for one I think the Heritage foundation is kind of bias in its economic ranking. For example, Singapore is ranked #2, yet 60% of is gdp is run by government-owned corporations. Also, if you base the stats not on GDP vs. economic freedom, but GDP growth vs. economic freedom, the correlation between the two isn't that great. Also, Chile has a pretty free market but while it has decent gdp growth, it isn't spectacular. I'd say that free markets are an important factor in economic growth, but there are other factors that are important as well.

The way I look at this is that there a number of big factors at play here. To name a few: IQ, EF (economic freedom), GE (geography), CV (cultural values). They interplay in different ways.

Norway and Qatar prove that natural resources (included in GE) can matter a lot as they have similar EF, IQ, and CV to their neigbours but much higher GDP per capita due to oil wealth.

South Korea and Chile both show the importance of EF.

Still, though, we see these massive inequities between different parts of the world (Europe and North American compared with Africa and South America for instance). It is here that IQ and CV start to matter a lot. Directly, folks with higher IQs and cultures that value innovation and hard work have more smart people, innovation, and hard work.

But, look at other channels. People with higher IQs tend to be more libertarian and support more EF. Likewise, open and innovative cultures tend to support more EF. And, of course, people with higher IQs are more likely to create cultures that are open and innovative. This is why I tend to believe IQ is a very important factor in global inequality.

People often misinterpret this as saying that low IQ nations with closed cultures are "stuck" at low levels of GDP per capita. Not at all. Evidence shows that economic freedom and pro market reforms can indeed raise the GDP per capita of these nations dramatically. The only problem is that the above factors (IQ and CV) may be holding pro market reforms back.

In other words, you can believe that IQ is the main, casual force in explaining international income differences and not be a genetic determinist when it comes to GDP per capita.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 9:08:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 1:08:18 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
You all know about the Protestant work ethic thesis that posits the rise of protestantism led to the rise of capitalism which in turn led to great increases in standard of living in certain countries.

A lot of people dislike this thesis. But, it seems to, at the basic level, make sense. Northern Europe is a lot nicer than Southern Europe with more social trust and social capital than southern Europe. Of course, Northern Europe is much more protestant than the Catholic southern Europe. Also, Northern Europe, despite being known for its welfare states, actually has smaller welfare states and more pro market policies than the failing Southern Europe.

(Link for this here: http://www.american.com...)

Still, the thesis has a number of problems. For one, any country that has moved towards a free market economic model has experienced rapid growth. And, it is certainly not true that only protestant countries have moved towards a free market model. But, this doesn't necessarily contradict the theory as it is possible that Protestantism led to the initial rise of capitalism but then other countries followed suit once they saw how effective it was at building wealth.

Murray Rothbard also has an interesting critique in which he argues that capitalism was born in medieval, Catholic Italy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

However, I think there is at least something to the case. It certainly works better than other theories to explain the rise of Europe. Indeed, the best book on this is The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes. It is true that this book takes a Eurocentric view of the world, but, as Landes points out, this is appropriate as Europe was unique in its incredible development. Landes also efffectively destroys anti European theories that posit colonialism accounts for the European miracle (and some other anti Europe theories).

The key thing that should be noted is that there was something special about Europe that led to the incredible innovation and development that started there (particularly in the north). I think Religion played a part here. So did IQ, other cultural factors, climate, and general attitude towards innovation. Acknowledging that Europe was indeed special and far ahead of the rest of the world in innovation isn't Eurocentric... it is simply accurate.

Hmm...I'm starting to see where people get the idea that jimtimmy2 has some...controversial views on race.

Anyway, my theory is simple. Europe wasn't affected by the Mongols. It kept its autonomy, and did not experience the purging effects of the world's largest contiguous empire. It looked forward to greater things, while the rest of Eurasia struggled to keep their identity and culture amidst the purge.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 9:14:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 9:08:56 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/12/2013 1:08:18 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
You all know about the Protestant work ethic thesis that posits the rise of protestantism led to the rise of capitalism which in turn led to great increases in standard of living in certain countries.

A lot of people dislike this thesis. But, it seems to, at the basic level, make sense. Northern Europe is a lot nicer than Southern Europe with more social trust and social capital than southern Europe. Of course, Northern Europe is much more protestant than the Catholic southern Europe. Also, Northern Europe, despite being known for its welfare states, actually has smaller welfare states and more pro market policies than the failing Southern Europe.

(Link for this here: http://www.american.com...)

Still, the thesis has a number of problems. For one, any country that has moved towards a free market economic model has experienced rapid growth. And, it is certainly not true that only protestant countries have moved towards a free market model. But, this doesn't necessarily contradict the theory as it is possible that Protestantism led to the initial rise of capitalism but then other countries followed suit once they saw how effective it was at building wealth.

Murray Rothbard also has an interesting critique in which he argues that capitalism was born in medieval, Catholic Italy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

However, I think there is at least something to the case. It certainly works better than other theories to explain the rise of Europe. Indeed, the best book on this is The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes. It is true that this book takes a Eurocentric view of the world, but, as Landes points out, this is appropriate as Europe was unique in its incredible development. Landes also efffectively destroys anti European theories that posit colonialism accounts for the European miracle (and some other anti Europe theories).

The key thing that should be noted is that there was something special about Europe that led to the incredible innovation and development that started there (particularly in the north). I think Religion played a part here. So did IQ, other cultural factors, climate, and general attitude towards innovation. Acknowledging that Europe was indeed special and far ahead of the rest of the world in innovation isn't Eurocentric... it is simply accurate.

Hmm...I'm starting to see where people get the idea that jimtimmy2 has some...controversial views on race.

Anyway, my theory is simple. Europe wasn't affected by the Mongols. It kept its autonomy, and did not experience the purging effects of the world's largest contiguous empire. It looked forward to greater things, while the rest of Eurasia struggled to keep their identity and culture amidst the purge.

YES FINALLY SOMEONE WHO AGREES WITH ME ON THE IMPACT OF THE MONGOLS
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 9:15:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 1:25:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I think you'd like the book:

A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World by Gregory Clark which has a similar conclusion.

One problem I have with the free-market hypothesis is that for one I think the Heritage foundation is kind of bias in its economic ranking. For example, Singapore is ranked #2, yet 60% of is gdp is run by government-owned corporations. Also, if you base the stats not on GDP vs. economic freedom, but GDP growth vs. economic freedom, the correlation between the two isn't that great. Also, Chile has a pretty free market but while it has decent gdp growth, it isn't spectacular. I'd say that free markets are an important factor in economic growth, but there are other factors that are important as well.

I think the largest factor is government corruption, which is not necessarily linear with government size.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 9:19:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 9:08:56 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/12/2013 1:08:18 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
You all know about the Protestant work ethic thesis that posits the rise of protestantism led to the rise of capitalism which in turn led to great increases in standard of living in certain countries.

A lot of people dislike this thesis. But, it seems to, at the basic level, make sense. Northern Europe is a lot nicer than Southern Europe with more social trust and social capital than southern Europe. Of course, Northern Europe is much more protestant than the Catholic southern Europe. Also, Northern Europe, despite being known for its welfare states, actually has smaller welfare states and more pro market policies than the failing Southern Europe.

(Link for this here: http://www.american.com...)

Still, the thesis has a number of problems. For one, any country that has moved towards a free market economic model has experienced rapid growth. And, it is certainly not true that only protestant countries have moved towards a free market model. But, this doesn't necessarily contradict the theory as it is possible that Protestantism led to the initial rise of capitalism but then other countries followed suit once they saw how effective it was at building wealth.

Murray Rothbard also has an interesting critique in which he argues that capitalism was born in medieval, Catholic Italy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

However, I think there is at least something to the case. It certainly works better than other theories to explain the rise of Europe. Indeed, the best book on this is The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes. It is true that this book takes a Eurocentric view of the world, but, as Landes points out, this is appropriate as Europe was unique in its incredible development. Landes also efffectively destroys anti European theories that posit colonialism accounts for the European miracle (and some other anti Europe theories).

The key thing that should be noted is that there was something special about Europe that led to the incredible innovation and development that started there (particularly in the north). I think Religion played a part here. So did IQ, other cultural factors, climate, and general attitude towards innovation. Acknowledging that Europe was indeed special and far ahead of the rest of the world in innovation isn't Eurocentric... it is simply accurate.

Hmm...I'm starting to see where people get the idea that jimtimmy2 has some...controversial views on race.

Anyway, my theory is simple. Europe wasn't affected by the Mongols. It kept its autonomy, and did not experience the purging effects of the world's largest contiguous empire. It looked forward to greater things, while the rest of Eurasia struggled to keep their identity and culture amidst the purge.

Lol, you really don't know jimtimmy well enough.

Also, in response to Jimtimmy, IQ does matter quite a bit, not just for creating free-market principles. A lot of socialists and communists are very intelligent, but they're hardly free market. Likewise, I also think there are a lot of dumb free-marketers and conservatives.

Conservatives do have a lower than average IQ compared to liberals. However, conservatives have been shown to have a stronger understanding of economics, according to a certain study (which mainly consisted of microeconomics). Although I think liberals would have a stronger understanding of macroeconomics than conservatives.

In theory advanced nations shouldn't have economic growth or should have lower economic growth than the rest of the world based on economic growth theory. However, this is not the case. And this is because these nations can create new and innovative ideas which is the heart needed to drive economic growth, since you can't just add more capital to your economy for growth based on the steady-state growth equation. And of course, one needs people of high IQ for innovative ideas and technology to occur.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 9:23:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, jimtimmy, I'm not sure if your familiar with the concept of the O-ring theory. It basically says that small differences in quality of labor have large effects on incomes.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 10:00:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 9:19:47 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 9:08:56 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/12/2013 1:08:18 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
You all know about the Protestant work ethic thesis that posits the rise of protestantism led to the rise of capitalism which in turn led to great increases in standard of living in certain countries.

A lot of people dislike this thesis. But, it seems to, at the basic level, make sense. Northern Europe is a lot nicer than Southern Europe with more social trust and social capital than southern Europe. Of course, Northern Europe is much more protestant than the Catholic southern Europe. Also, Northern Europe, despite being known for its welfare states, actually has smaller welfare states and more pro market policies than the failing Southern Europe.

(Link for this here: http://www.american.com...)

Still, the thesis has a number of problems. For one, any country that has moved towards a free market economic model has experienced rapid growth. And, it is certainly not true that only protestant countries have moved towards a free market model. But, this doesn't necessarily contradict the theory as it is possible that Protestantism led to the initial rise of capitalism but then other countries followed suit once they saw how effective it was at building wealth.

Murray Rothbard also has an interesting critique in which he argues that capitalism was born in medieval, Catholic Italy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

However, I think there is at least something to the case. It certainly works better than other theories to explain the rise of Europe. Indeed, the best book on this is The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David Landes. It is true that this book takes a Eurocentric view of the world, but, as Landes points out, this is appropriate as Europe was unique in its incredible development. Landes also efffectively destroys anti European theories that posit colonialism accounts for the European miracle (and some other anti Europe theories).

The key thing that should be noted is that there was something special about Europe that led to the incredible innovation and development that started there (particularly in the north). I think Religion played a part here. So did IQ, other cultural factors, climate, and general attitude towards innovation. Acknowledging that Europe was indeed special and far ahead of the rest of the world in innovation isn't Eurocentric... it is simply accurate.

Hmm...I'm starting to see where people get the idea that jimtimmy2 has some...controversial views on race.

Anyway, my theory is simple. Europe wasn't affected by the Mongols. It kept its autonomy, and did not experience the purging effects of the world's largest contiguous empire. It looked forward to greater things, while the rest of Eurasia struggled to keep their identity and culture amidst the purge.

Lol, you really don't know jimtimmy well enough.

Also, in response to Jimtimmy, IQ does matter quite a bit, not just for creating free-market principles. A lot of socialists and communists are very intelligent, but they're hardly free market. Likewise, I also think there are a lot of dumb free-marketers and conservatives.

Conservatives do have a lower than average IQ compared to liberals. However, conservatives have been shown to have a stronger understanding of economics, according to a certain study (which mainly consisted of microeconomics). Although I think liberals would have a stronger understanding of macroeconomics than conservatives.

In theory advanced nations shouldn't have economic growth or should have lower economic growth than the rest of the world based on economic growth theory. However, this is not the case. And this is because these nations can create new and innovative ideas which is the heart needed to drive economic growth, since you can't just add more capital to your economy for growth based on the steady-state growth equation. And of course, one needs people of high IQ for innovative ideas and technology to occur.

I agree that there are a lot of dumb free marketers and smart statists. But, on average, the free marketers have it in terms of IQ.

Also, I haven't seen solid evidence that liberals have higher average IQs than conservatives. I've seen studies that claim to show this, but it turns our their definition of conservative is quite odd.

What is undoubtedly true is that social liberals are smarter than social conservatives and economic conservatives are smarter than social liberals. In other words, the more libertarian, the smarter.

I am open to evidence showing libs are smarter (I just havent seen solid evidence yet and the fact that both have equal education roughly and cons have higher incomes makes me skeptical), but we do have solid evidence that libertarians are smarter than both which is what I was talking about.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 12:06:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 10:00:11 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:


I agree that there are a lot of dumb free marketers and smart statists. But, on average, the free marketers have it in terms of IQ.

Also, I haven't seen solid evidence that liberals have higher average IQs than conservatives. I've seen studies that claim to show this, but it turns our their definition of conservative is quite odd.

What is undoubtedly true is that social liberals are smarter than social conservatives and economic conservatives are smarter than social liberals. In other words, the more libertarian, the smarter.

Yes, I agree that libertarians are the smartest. The problem is though that social conservatives tend to be for economic freedom, while social liberals tend to be against economic freedom.

I am open to evidence showing libs are smarter (I just havent seen solid evidence yet and the fact that both have equal education roughly and cons have higher incomes makes me skeptical), but we do have solid evidence that libertarians are smarter than both which is what I was talking about.

Its hard to find the actual surveys used since most studies just have an abstract and you can't find the document. Yes, I am curious how conservative and liberal are defined in these studies. Whether its self-identification or based on certain questions. Of course, lots of studies ask either if one's a liberal or conservative, even if you don't identity with either. Although, I'm not sure what libertarians identify most with.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 12:20:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It looks like the data conducted from it is here:

http://www3.norc.org...

It asks you to self-identify one's political ideology. They also use the wordsum to test for IQ.

If you do the data analysis you will find there is indeed a correlation between IQ and political ideology.

http://www3.norc.org...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 1:49:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If anyone doubts economic libertarians (as well as social libertarians) are the smartest group, look here:

http://econlog.econlib.org...

and here:

http://www.halfsigma.com...

The major study that purports to show liberals are smarter than conservatives only looks at SOCIAL conservatives:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This makes sense. What we know is that the smarter people are, the less statist they are. In other words, smart people are more libertarian than dumb people. The politics of the stupid are economically socialist and socially conservative (or controlling) while the politics of the intelligent are economically capitalist and socially liberal.

DK, I actually wasn't really able to navigate your link. So, I couldn't confirm whether or not your claim was true or not (sorry).

But, from what I have read, it seems that there is no reliable data on political party or presences and IQ that can allow us to make any such comparison. I also know that some other countries, such as Sweden, do have solid data. And, in Sweden, it is the conservatives who are much more intelligent than the social democrats. This at least debunks the claim that there is something inherent to left wing ideologies that makes people smarter or attracts smarter people.

http://super-economy.blogspot.com...

I also know that Republicans (and i believe conservatives) have higher incomes and an equal amount of average education (albeit with a lower standard deviation) with Democrats (Liberals?). This all suggests a higher IQ for Republicans, but is not enough evidence to conclude.

From what I can tell, we CAN conclude a few things based on the evidence I have seen:

1.) There is nothing inherent to either right wing or left wing ideologies that increase people's IQ or attract people with higher IQs.

2.) However, economic and social libertarianism does either attract people with higher IQs or lead to higher IQ (I suspect the latter quite strongly).

3.) Republicans and Democrats probably have similar IQs, but the data slightly favors Republicans.

4.) There is not much data that tells us about liberals and conservatives (here is one I am willing to say I am wrong on if I see data).

The big conclusion that really matters is that less intelligent people are attracted to nationalist and socialist ideologies while more intelligent people are attracted to socially liberal and capitalist ideologies.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 3:12:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 2:16:45 AM, PrivateEye wrote:
See Einstein and everything you said you f*cking monkey

See definition of the word "average".
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 3:26:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gonna push on the retard act so? It's amazing how obviously pathetic people can be and continue on. I hadn't read this thread before I gave that analysis of you in the "most racist" thread btw but it compliments what I said beautifully. You should check it out if you haven't already
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 12:02:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 3:27:47 AM, PrivateEye wrote:
I was spot on about your trolling using the Jewish thing too I'm pretty sure.

The fact that you think you were "spot on" there shows how ignorant and useless everything you have said thus far on DDO is.
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 12:06:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I probably was. What do you argue about here? Capitalism and race, right? Which is your preferred topic? Race, right? Do they compliment each other? You're for furthering capitalism believing racial differences will be better represented this way. Yes, they compliment each other.

Quite obviously you take thrills from putting others down. This is textbook inferiority complex.
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 12:15:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There'd also be a whole load of confirmation bias mixed in there with what your insecure little ego wants to believe by the way. Accept yourself as a retard.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 1:17:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 1:49:46 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
If anyone doubts economic libertarians (as well as social libertarians) are the smartest group, look here:

http://econlog.econlib.org...


and here:


http://www.halfsigma.com...




The major study that purports to show liberals are smarter than conservatives only looks at SOCIAL conservatives:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This makes sense. What we know is that the smarter people are, the less statist they are. In other words, smart people are more libertarian than dumb people. The politics of the stupid are economically socialist and socially conservative (or controlling) while the politics of the intelligent are economically capitalist and socially liberal.

DK, I actually wasn't really able to navigate your link. So, I couldn't confirm whether or not your claim was true or not (sorry).

But, from what I have read, it seems that there is no reliable data on political party or presences and IQ that can allow us to make any such comparison. I also know that some other countries, such as Sweden, do have solid data. And, in Sweden, it is the conservatives who are much more intelligent than the social democrats. This at least debunks the claim that there is something inherent to left wing ideologies that makes people smarter or attracts smarter people.

http://super-economy.blogspot.com...


I also know that Republicans (and i believe conservatives) have higher incomes and an equal amount of average education (albeit with a lower standard deviation) with Democrats (Liberals?). This all suggests a higher IQ for Republicans, but is not enough evidence to conclude.

From what I can tell, we CAN conclude a few things based on the evidence I have seen:

1.) There is nothing inherent to either right wing or left wing ideologies that increase people's IQ or attract people with higher IQs.

2.) However, economic and social libertarianism does either attract people with higher IQs or lead to higher IQ (I suspect the latter quite strongly).

3.) Republicans and Democrats probably have similar IQs, but the data slightly favors Republicans.

4.) There is not much data that tells us about liberals and conservatives (here is one I am willing to say I am wrong on if I see data).


The big conclusion that really matters is that less intelligent people are attracted to nationalist and socialist ideologies while more intelligent people are attracted to socially liberal and capitalist ideologies.

Hmmm, interesting. Satoshi Kanazawa has a pretty good explanation of why liberals are smarter than conservatives and has a more-in-depth technical, peer-review article on it as well.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Although, this does seem to contradict the evidence you presented in Sweden. However, those that do favor more libertarian policy
usually learn quite a bit about economics. You have to be fairly smart to understand economics as well. Your mileage might very on what's libertarian though. It's been noted that the left in the US would often be considered right-wing in European countries (and Sweden is well known for socialist-like policies and high government spending).

http://www.psychologytoday.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2013 10:04:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 1:17:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/13/2013 1:49:46 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
If anyone doubts economic libertarians (as well as social libertarians) are the smartest group, look here:

http://econlog.econlib.org...


and here:


http://www.halfsigma.com...




The major study that purports to show liberals are smarter than conservatives only looks at SOCIAL conservatives:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This makes sense. What we know is that the smarter people are, the less statist they are. In other words, smart people are more libertarian than dumb people. The politics of the stupid are economically socialist and socially conservative (or controlling) while the politics of the intelligent are economically capitalist and socially liberal.

DK, I actually wasn't really able to navigate your link. So, I couldn't confirm whether or not your claim was true or not (sorry).

But, from what I have read, it seems that there is no reliable data on political party or presences and IQ that can allow us to make any such comparison. I also know that some other countries, such as Sweden, do have solid data. And, in Sweden, it is the conservatives who are much more intelligent than the social democrats. This at least debunks the claim that there is something inherent to left wing ideologies that makes people smarter or attracts smarter people.

http://super-economy.blogspot.com...


I also know that Republicans (and i believe conservatives) have higher incomes and an equal amount of average education (albeit with a lower standard deviation) with Democrats (Liberals?). This all suggests a higher IQ for Republicans, but is not enough evidence to conclude.

From what I can tell, we CAN conclude a few things based on the evidence I have seen:

1.) There is nothing inherent to either right wing or left wing ideologies that increase people's IQ or attract people with higher IQs.

2.) However, economic and social libertarianism does either attract people with higher IQs or lead to higher IQ (I suspect the latter quite strongly).

3.) Republicans and Democrats probably have similar IQs, but the data slightly favors Republicans.

4.) There is not much data that tells us about liberals and conservatives (here is one I am willing to say I am wrong on if I see data).


The big conclusion that really matters is that less intelligent people are attracted to nationalist and socialist ideologies while more intelligent people are attracted to socially liberal and capitalist ideologies.

Hmmm, interesting. Satoshi Kanazawa has a pretty good explanation of why liberals are smarter than conservatives and has a more-in-depth technical, peer-review article on it as well.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Although, this does seem to contradict the evidence you presented in Sweden. However, those that do favor more libertarian policy
usually learn quite a bit about economics. You have to be fairly smart to understand economics as well. Your mileage might very on what's libertarian though. It's been noted that the left in the US would often be considered right-wing in European countries (and Sweden is well known for socialist-like policies and high government spending).

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

First. I wonder if liberals would accept the assumptions that article makes about IQ in any other context. Not that that matters, but just an observation.

As to the substance of the article, a few points:

1.) Let us not forget that economic libertarianism is positively correlated with intelligence (as does social liberalism).

2.) While it seems to be true that liberals have a higher average IQ than conservatives as you said, the same does not seem to be true of Democrats and Republicans.

3.) We also know that, at least in Sweden, members of the Conservative Party are more intelligent than members of the Social Democrat Party. I would predict that this holds in most other European countries.

We can now imagine a theory where less intelligent people are both more nationalistic (which tends to be associated with the right) and more socialistic (which tends to be associated with the left).

Now, let us look at European politics. Unlike the USA, we have many significant third parties. There are far right, anti immigrant nationalistic parties and also green parties that are often more centrist on economic policy than Social Democrats.

This takes many of the hard core nationalists out of the European conservative parties and many of the more fiscally conservative but supposedly progressive members out of the social Democratic parties. In other words, it takes the most nationalistic wing out of the conservative parties and also takes the least socialistic wing of the SD parties.

So, it is then no surprise that conservative parties are more intelligent than the SD parties.

Likewise, there are no third parties that are powerful in the USA. So, the nationalists stick with the Repubs and the fiscally conservative progressives stick with the Dems. And, not surprisingly, it seems that we have similar intelligence in both parties.

I think the key thing the article gets wrong is implying that socialism is evolutionarily novel. Hardly.

We evolved in a socialistic economic setting (very small communal societies). And, socialist policies are often justified by appeals to nationalism (Economic Patriotism as Obama says) which directly appeals to the dumb. The less intelligent are very anti market and easily attracted to economic nationalism which is really just state socialism in most contexts.

Markets are evolutionarily novel and thus the more intelligent are more likely to support them.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 2:03:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/13/2013 10:04:09 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/13/2013 1:17:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/13/2013 1:49:46 AM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
If anyone doubts economic libertarians (as well as social libertarians) are the smartest group, look here:

http://econlog.econlib.org...


and here:


http://www.halfsigma.com...




The major study that purports to show liberals are smarter than conservatives only looks at SOCIAL conservatives:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

This makes sense. What we know is that the smarter people are, the less statist they are. In other words, smart people are more libertarian than dumb people. The politics of the stupid are economically socialist and socially conservative (or controlling) while the politics of the intelligent are economically capitalist and socially liberal.

DK, I actually wasn't really able to navigate your link. So, I couldn't confirm whether or not your claim was true or not (sorry).

But, from what I have read, it seems that there is no reliable data on political party or presences and IQ that can allow us to make any such comparison. I also know that some other countries, such as Sweden, do have solid data. And, in Sweden, it is the conservatives who are much more intelligent than the social democrats. This at least debunks the claim that there is something inherent to left wing ideologies that makes people smarter or attracts smarter people.

http://super-economy.blogspot.com...


I also know that Republicans (and i believe conservatives) have higher incomes and an equal amount of average education (albeit with a lower standard deviation) with Democrats (Liberals?). This all suggests a higher IQ for Republicans, but is not enough evidence to conclude.

From what I can tell, we CAN conclude a few things based on the evidence I have seen:

1.) There is nothing inherent to either right wing or left wing ideologies that increase people's IQ or attract people with higher IQs.

2.) However, economic and social libertarianism does either attract people with higher IQs or lead to higher IQ (I suspect the latter quite strongly).

3.) Republicans and Democrats probably have similar IQs, but the data slightly favors Republicans.

4.) There is not much data that tells us about liberals and conservatives (here is one I am willing to say I am wrong on if I see data).


The big conclusion that really matters is that less intelligent people are attracted to nationalist and socialist ideologies while more intelligent people are attracted to socially liberal and capitalist ideologies.

Hmmm, interesting. Satoshi Kanazawa has a pretty good explanation of why liberals are smarter than conservatives and has a more-in-depth technical, peer-review article on it as well.

http://www.psychologytoday.com...

Although, this does seem to contradict the evidence you presented in Sweden. However, those that do favor more libertarian policy
usually learn quite a bit about economics. You have to be fairly smart to understand economics as well. Your mileage might very on what's libertarian though. It's been noted that the left in the US would often be considered right-wing in European countries (and Sweden is well known for socialist-like policies and high government spending).

http://www.psychologytoday.com...


First. I wonder if liberals would accept the assumptions that article makes about IQ in any other context. Not that that matters, but just an observation.

As to the substance of the article, a few points:

1.) Let us not forget that economic libertarianism is positively correlated with intelligence (as does social liberalism).

2.) While it seems to be true that liberals have a higher average IQ than conservatives as you said, the same does not seem to be true of Democrats and Republicans.

3.) We also know that, at least in Sweden, members of the Conservative Party are more intelligent than members of the Social Democrat Party. I would predict that this holds in most other European countries.


We can now imagine a theory where less intelligent people are both more nationalistic (which tends to be associated with the right) and more socialistic (which tends to be associated with the left).

Now, let us look at European politics. Unlike the USA, we have many significant third parties. There are far right, anti immigrant nationalistic parties and also green parties that are often more centrist on economic policy than Social Democrats.

This takes many of the hard core nationalists out of the European conservative parties and many of the more fiscally conservative but supposedly progressive members out of the social Democratic parties. In other words, it takes the most nationalistic wing out of the conservative parties and also takes the least socialistic wing of the SD parties.

So, it is then no surprise that conservative parties are more intelligent than the SD parties.

Likewise, there are no third parties that are powerful in the USA. So, the nationalists stick with the Repubs and the fiscally conservative progressives stick with the Dems. And, not surprisingly, it seems that we have similar intelligence in both parties.

I think the key thing the article gets wrong is implying that socialism is evolutionarily novel. Hardly.

We evolved in a socialistic economic setting (very small communal societies). And, socialist policies are often justified by appeals to nationalism (Economic Patriotism as Obama says) which directly appeals to the dumb. The less intelligent are very anti market and easily attracted to economic nationalism which is really just state socialism in most contexts.

Markets are evolutionarily novel and thus the more intelligent are more likely to support them.

Pretty good analysis. I concede. I find the bolded a pretty good analysis as well.

I'd have to check the correlation on Democrats vs. Republicans. Let me run the data analysis
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 2:52:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 2:14:30 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Nope, there's still seems to be a correlation showing that Democrats are smarter than Republicans.

Admittedly, my lack of technological skill (which I'm usually pretty good at) has kept me from navigating the GSS. I'll keep trying. But, from what I have found, this data is consistent with the claim that liberals are smarter than conservatives while Repubs are smarter than Dems:

http://www.halfsigma.com...

Of course, by the author's own admission, that ignored trends and he later added this:

http://www.halfsigma.com...

This would support what you say. But, I think this excerpt is critical:

"Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was the party of the less intelligent and the Republican Party was the party of the more intelligent.

But today, the Democratic Party is the party of both the less intelligent and the more intelligent while the Republican Party is the party of the middle. This doesn"t seem to me like a stable situation."


In other words, Republicans used to be far more intelligent than Democrats but then the high IQ vote shifted towards the Dems. This is consistent with education levels (Dems have the highly educated and lowly educated and Repubs have the middle and the same trend is here).

The notion that there is something inherent about left wing ideas, policies, parties, etc. that attract more intelligent individuals is simply incorrect. If liberals and Dems are on average smarter than conservatives and Repubs in the USA right now (which they might be), this has certainly not been true across time and in other countries (in both other countries and the USA past the opposite has been true).

I've seen these studies come out before. And, as you know, I dislike conservatives and liberals quite a bit. But, it is quite annoying when liberals say "We are smarter than conservatives because liberalism (as in statist liberalism) is such a high minded ideology while conservatism is for the tribalistic".

That article you linked to earlier got it right with regards to "evolutionary novelties". But, she got what was evolutionarily novel wrong. As I said in my last post, markets and capitalism are evolutionarily novel while egalitarianism and socialism are not.

Indeed, the economic policies that the modern left espouses are as close to tribalism as the nationalism and social conservatism of the right, which is why the less intelligent tend to be with the left on economics and with the right on everything else.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2013 3:22:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/14/2013 2:52:46 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 6/14/2013 2:14:30 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Nope, there's still seems to be a correlation showing that Democrats are smarter than Republicans.


Admittedly, my lack of technological skill (which I'm usually pretty good at) has kept me from navigating the GSS. I'll keep trying. But, from what I have found, this data is consistent with the claim that liberals are smarter than conservatives while Repubs are smarter than Dems:

http://www.halfsigma.com...

Okay, nevermind then. I concede this point. Also I didn't know you read halfsigma. I love that blog as well.


Of course, by the author's own admission, that ignored trends and he later added this:

http://www.halfsigma.com...


This would support what you say. But, I think this excerpt is critical:

"Once upon a time, the Democratic Party was the party of the less intelligent and the Republican Party was the party of the more intelligent.

But today, the Democratic Party is the party of both the less intelligent and the more intelligent while the Republican Party is the party of the middle. This doesn"t seem to me like a stable situation."



In other words, Republicans used to be far more intelligent than Democrats but then the high IQ vote shifted towards the Dems. This is consistent with education levels (Dems have the highly educated and lowly educated and Repubs have the middle and the same trend is here).

The notion that there is something inherent about left wing ideas, policies, parties, etc. that attract more intelligent individuals is simply incorrect. If liberals and Dems are on average smarter than conservatives and Repubs in the USA right now (which they might be), this has certainly not been true across time and in other countries (in both other countries and the USA past the opposite has been true).

Well that sounds about right. I think the problem with modern day Republicans is there tendencies to have very anti-science views and trying to appeal too much to the christian right. And they do tend to be nationalistic as well.

I've seen these studies come out before. And, as you know, I dislike conservatives and liberals quite a bit. But, it is quite annoying when liberals say "We are smarter than conservatives because liberalism (as in statist liberalism) is such a high minded ideology while conservatism is for the tribalistic".

That article you linked to earlier got it right with regards to "evolutionary novelties". But, she got what was evolutionarily novel wrong. As I said in my last post, markets and capitalism are evolutionarily novel while egalitarianism and socialism are not.

Indeed, the economic policies that the modern left espouses are as close to tribalism as the nationalism and social conservatism of the right, which is why the less intelligent tend to be with the left on economics and with the right on everything else.

I agree
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...