I also believe this, and want to add that conservatism is mostly a combination of ideals based on grievances and a complete lack of critical thinking thinking as well.

I know plenty of intelligent conservatives, but all them lack empathy for anyone outside their circle.

it would be easy to fake. its not hard know how to be a good person in theyre given socity, manipulator do it all the time. also are you going to define morality for all of humanity for this test? yah good luck with that lol.

There are very few actual republicans or conservatives now. What you are describing is not historical conservatism either socially or fiscally.

Actual conservatism is just as "logical" as libralism / leftism, or whatever you want to call the other side. Old fashioned conservatism is just the idea that traditional ways of doing things are good, so we should be slow in adopting changes.

Modern American conservatism isn't conservatism. It's an incoherent philosophy that resists some changes while making a lot of other very radical changes. There's no plan behind it. Even their "gameplan", project 2025, is a mess of contradictory ideas. The execution depends on the whims of an idiotic, incurious, and possibly altzheimer-addled man.

Well there are also a lot of rich intelligent conservatives who are only there because it's the best place from which to exploit everyone else for further gain.

Because if we make them feel valued they might give you some money. Do this enough times and you can be a rich asshole too!

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398528748_Exploring_exceptional_minds_Political_orientations_of_gifted_adults

EDIT: Oops, originally just linked to a figure from the document, heh.

It is not just a question of emotional intelligence. As an autistic person, this is really a weak point in my statistics.

I'm simply not stupid enough to fall for their ideas.

To be liberal requires empathy. A deep understanding of others and their situations and the knowledge that your own personal needs dont always automatically outweigh others.

Not strictly necessarily. For me, it comes down to logic, reason, and evidence.

I’m neurodivergent. This means that among some mild cognitive superpowers, I also have some significant weaknesses, such as an inability to understand or even recognize the inner workings of others. Essentially, the first half of your second sentence, above. That simply isn’t in my wheelhouse, no matter how hard I try. It’s analogous to asking a blind person to pick out the colour red.

But I reach the same place - the second half of the second sentence - by using logic and reason and evidence (usually via science) to come to an understanding of what is correct and good and right and how the needs of others simply don’t restrict my own personal needs in any way, and so carry equally as much importance and have all the same ability to be fulfilled without conflict. And because some of these people are disadvantaged or oppressed, it is my duty as a fucking human being to have their back whenever I have a decent opportunity to do so.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, you can be a liberal and a dumb dumb, ask me how I know.

Teacher: “Good job Snot Flickerman, here’s a jar of paste you can eat.”

https://youtu.be/6pDH66X3ClA right?

Imagining a world where the headlines aren't click bait and the articles are well researched. One day...

Proof that academia cultures the left, neglecting real science like the fact that you can pressurize water into ice while preserving its warmth!

~ a conservative somewhere

Nah. You might consider yourself as not intelligent (that's your opinion, I can't say since I don't know you), but you have empathy. And it's that, empathy (or lack of), what we should link to conservatism. I'll take a dumb but empathetic person over a smart but psychopathic asshole every time.

Options: More conservative or lower IQ

Implication: Option #2

Secondary analysis: Good person

Interaction behavior: Amicable, but simple

horseshoe axiom tells us this is also true of the far left

the peer reviewed and reproduced lemmy experiment corroborates this theory

I wonder if there’s a similar study that uses executive capacity (multitasking etc.) as a more objective measure of intelligence. When I was in school, this was the most supported way to objectively measure intelligence (but of course, is that actually intelligence? Intelligence is just a word we have. Having the word doesn’t mean that the concept exists.)

There's a reason universities lean heavily left

Present! I don't even remember my times tables

Sure, but perhaps take solace that we're less deliberately hateful and that stupidity isn't celebrated as it is among the arch conservatives?

Aaah a feel-good article for leftists.

Eh. I don't feel particularly good that I'm surrounded by conservative idiots.

I think that political allegiance is often much more about emotions and sociological relations than intellect. Class thinking is more prevalent than we assume nowadays

Don't worry. Let a non dumb dumb explain.

There are many causality relationship kinds.

1. Leftist -> big IQ: being leftist makes someone have big IQ
2. Leftist <- big IQ: having big IQ makes someone a leftist.
3. Leftist <-> big IQ: both 1 and 2. That is, saying "I am a leftist" and saying "I have big IQ" is the same, since one causes the other.
4. Third parameter -> leftist AND third parameter -> big IQ: there is something that causes both being leftist and having big IQ.

In case 1, all leftists have big IQ. But NOT all big IQ ppl are leftist.

In case 2, all big IQ ppl are leftist. But NOT all leftists have big IQ.

In case 3, all big IQ ppl are leftist, and all leftists have big IQ.

In case 4, some NOT all leftist have big IQ. And NOT all big IQ ppl are leftist. But some are.

Assuming having big IQ is desirable, leftists would want either case 1 or 3. Since that would mean they have a big IQ.

However, the headline seems to suggest case 2. And in reality. And it could still be case 4.

Of course, in reality there is an uncountable number of parameters, not just 3, so don't take the "all" in my comment as literally "all". Reality probably resembles more case 4.

If this were a feel-good article for leftists, the headline would suggest case 1 or 3. Since that is what leftists want.

Even assuming the best case scenario of case 2 where all big IQ people are leftists. If you define big IQ as "top 10%" and low IQ as "not big IQ": it is technically possible for 90% of leftists to be low IQ. And if low IQ is 50-50 leftist-conservative, 78% of leftists would be low IQ.

Knowing you aren't smart makes you smarter than all the people who think they are smart but actually aren't.

That was a complete sentence with punctuation and a clause. Youre smarter than every living 'conservative'.

Reminds me of an old Rehab lyric:

 I know I'm stupid  
 so I must be smarter than you

I'm not a pheasant plucker, I'm a lussy picker.

Mensa is not a good selector. First off it not that high of an IQ requirement, second, they have to want to join Mensa. Real brilliant folks have little interest.

That's why I'm top of the bell curve, babbyyyyyy

IQ is racist? It think it's generally accepted that good culturally neutral IQ test don't exists and you can't use it to test differences between races. I think the only problem is that some racists don't understand this and still try.

I'd be interested to know if the people decrying IQ tests in this thread could accurately describe one.