In the US, when you compare intelligence to self-identifying political views, there are two correlations that stand out: 1) more intelligent means more likely to have non-moderate views 2) more intelligent are more likely to self-identify as liberal, or support policies generally thought of as liberal. That is, there’s movement away from identifying as centrist or moderate to either extreme, and more of that movement is to the left end of the spectrum. These results are fairly robust, see for example the GSS, using WORDSUM as a proxy for intelligence (it is highly correlated with IQ).
Also, people who self-identify as not religious are also much more likely to self-identify as liberal, and both political leanings and religious leanings are highly hereditary. Again, see GSS data. Note that this correlation becomes weaker if you hold fixed to a specific degree of intelligence, but it still exists.
So, the comment is making correct conclusions. Obviously there are some caveats, such as the issue that intelligence is not necessarily correlated with rationality or correctness, and that memetic issues could potentially cause an anti-correlation. There’s also evidence that by some metrics, liberals know less about politics and current events. See for example this Pew study(pdf) where Democrats know less on average than Republicans. (This may be due to income issues, since there’s a correlation between political knowledge level and income, and unfortunately Pew hasn’t published the raw data to examine that issue in detail. )
But overall, nothing stated in the original post is at all unreasonable.
That is, there’s movement away from identifying as centrist or moderate to either extreme, and more of that movement is to the left end of the spectrum. These results are fairly robust, see for example the GSS, using WORDSUM as a proxy for intelligence (it is highly correlated with IQ).
When taking into account that we are likley to be not just ideologically more extreme than average but also more divided (than say a random gathering of the “highly educated”) since many of us here are metacontrarians, it seems like a very good idea to strictly adhere to the “no mindkillers” rule on political discussion.
In the US, when you compare intelligence to self-identifying political views, there are two correlations that stand out: 1) more intelligent means more likely to have non-moderate views 2) more intelligent are more likely to self-identify as liberal, or support policies generally thought of as liberal. That is, there’s movement away from identifying as centrist or moderate to either extreme, and more of that movement is to the left end of the spectrum. These results are fairly robust, see for example the GSS, using WORDSUM as a proxy for intelligence (it is highly correlated with IQ).
Also, people who self-identify as not religious are also much more likely to self-identify as liberal, and both political leanings and religious leanings are highly hereditary. Again, see GSS data. Note that this correlation becomes weaker if you hold fixed to a specific degree of intelligence, but it still exists.
So, the comment is making correct conclusions. Obviously there are some caveats, such as the issue that intelligence is not necessarily correlated with rationality or correctness, and that memetic issues could potentially cause an anti-correlation. There’s also evidence that by some metrics, liberals know less about politics and current events. See for example this Pew study(pdf) where Democrats know less on average than Republicans. (This may be due to income issues, since there’s a correlation between political knowledge level and income, and unfortunately Pew hasn’t published the raw data to examine that issue in detail. )
But overall, nothing stated in the original post is at all unreasonable.
Upvoted for summarizing data rather than merely providing another anecdote.
When taking into account that we are likley to be not just ideologically more extreme than average but also more divided (than say a random gathering of the “highly educated”) since many of us here are metacontrarians, it seems like a very good idea to strictly adhere to the “no mindkillers” rule on political discussion.