"Solid ice colder than liquid water, study finds."
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:

- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
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
from a logical standpoint, conservatism is lacking any kind of sense or logic. I think it's safe to assume that, in order to follow blindly an idea that crumbles as soon as you critically think about it, you have to lack the ability to critically think.
What I think tho is that it's empathy what we should link to intelligence (or whatever you want to call the skill set that allows you to question and critizice everything).
Conservatism is a lack of empathy (which comes with a lack of said "intelligence").
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.
Duh
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.
Empathy requires emotional intelligence.
Its easy to see it in action. Pick a problem and then look at the solutions offered by populist politicians to solve them.
In the UK one of the problems is immigrants arriving on small boats. The populist "solution"? "STOP THE BOATS" shouted far and wide.
How we ask?
And then silence. And when pressed, the likes of Reform offer more soundbites like "use the navy" and "send them back" but without any substance.
Meanwhile Liberal politicians offer actual solutions that are not sound bites, and they won't work quickly. Things like working with the French to find and arrest the people organising it. Helping to improve facilities in France and the rest of Europe so the UK isn't seen as somewhere an immigrant needs to travel to.
Basically, intelligent people aren't fooled by meaningless slogans. Morons aren't able to understand that deep problems require deep and complex solutions.
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.
Aaah a feel-good article for leftists.
Plenty of dumb dumbs among us, don't worry.
Of course. There's a reason why conservatives don't want the masses educated. Because they'd see how much they're getting fucked by said conservatives.
Higher IQ is also associated with higher Critical Thinking Skills, which help you recognize and avoid conservative propaganda.
IQ testing is pseudoscience. It's one of the preferred methods of the far right to try to differentiate between races for that very reason. Pseudoscience is a lot more malleable for their purposes than the settled science that says race doesn't exist biologically.
Having a "high IQ" is only proof that you're good at IQ tests.
Veritasium made a video talking about IQ tests, their validity and so on. https://youtu.be/FkKPsLxgpuY?is=WpF8XXHPRKMAG2Lo
One of my key takeaways: IQ tests have some validity as a diagnostic tool for asessing cognitive disabilities or illnesses, but they should not be taken as serious and significant as many less informed people seem to do.
It's not completely pseudo-science, as there are a lot of correlations with things like academic success or job performance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations
"The current study showed that high intelligence does not, as one might assume, lead to radical political positions. Instead, highly gifted adults are on average just as politically diverse and moderate as the rest of the population."
Well that headline is...misleading.
Fuck IQ. Literally political stance is a better measurement of intelligence.
Wait...
This is because reality itself has a strong left-leaning bias, and intelligence makes you encounter that a lot more as you interact with reality.
Sure, there are highly intelligent right-wingers, but intelligence only gives you the cognitive tools to discover reality, it doesn’t force you to use them. Just because a person is intelligent doesn’t mean they can’t slide off into wharrderp fantasy land.
Here's a link to the study, so you don't have to read an article about an article.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289625000893
I think there's a litany of problems with this assertion.
Firstly the sample size is 150 people, too small for any meaningful conclusion.
Secondly the article doesn't make any attempt at a causal relationship. Are men with higher IQs more progressive because they have higher IQs? Or is there some other reason.
One hypothesis is simply that students in the 80s and 90s who were more comfortable with STEM work (and IQ tests) were more likely to go on to tertiary academic studies, and we know that there is a causal relationship between academic achievement and progressive politics. Given the era, perhaps women were less likely to follow that path than their male counterparts.
I'm not saying that's the answer, it's just an example of how statistical links aren't always helpful.
Edit: most of what I said is really dumb and wrong!
150 is actually appropriate for this type of study and effect size.
Especially considering it was a longitudinal study that spanned 35 years. Impressive they could maintain that many participants.
Sure we could always use bigger samples but 150 is really good actually.
Secondly.
Causal research is a whole other thing.
Correlation research comes first. Once that's established , Then causal research.
Causal research is much more different to conduct for social factors like this. Nearly impossible actually.
So don't be surprised when such research doesn't exist.
You can't manipulate someone's IQ. And you can't really manipulate their political leaning.
There is no real way to run an experimental study to find out causes.
Best you can do is find more correlations.
and we know that there is a causal relationship between academic achievement and progressive politics
Do we know that? That's actually a very strong claim, significantly stronger than the OP's claim of correlation. For a comment about skepticism of statistical links, your rebuttal is more problematic than the original claim.
In before everyone trashes IQ for being racist and pointless.
And I'm not saying it isn't ethnocentric and a bit arbitrary. But walk around a Mensa meeting and you'll see things in common.
Mostly that everyone is really socially inept if not outright problematic.
But 90% liberal, yeah.
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.
Men with high net worth are more conservative leaning?! Isn't that weird. Learning about the world builds compassion, while feeding your own greed breeds self interest. So weird. Remind me why we ask the opinions of rich people again?
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!
Traditional values are a crutch for the intellectually unambitious and a cudgel for the ambitious.
I mean, I find it interesting that this pattern does not exist among women.
Too bad the article doesn't actually link the study.
EDIT: Oops, originally just linked to a figure from the document, heh.
"My social media isn't an echo chamber"
I'm bucking the trend
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.
As a high IQ person I would like to remind everyone that IQ has been coopted by a scientific racism and eugenics agenda, and the originator, a French man by the name of Alfred Binet,
"stressed that intellectual development progressed at variable rates and could be influenced by the environment; therefore, intelligence was not based solely on genetics, was malleable rather than fixed, and could only be found in children with comparable backgrounds."
We can only assume that any correlation in beliefs and scoring is the product of an environment which tends to produce both or inhibits the production of both. IE Fox News makes you dumb, and Fox News makes you conservative, concurrently. The study does not mention TV.
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.)
Maybe, but I think that's still going to be a function of environment vs innate. There's not really an objective measure when existence is subjective, and an individual's capacity for effort is very dependent on their resources that they can consume. All sorts of effort, not just intellectual.
Meanwhile, me:
*holding triangle block piece
...and you know what hole that goes in? That's right, the square hole.
Okay but I'm not smart.
Knowing you aren't smart makes you smarter than all the people who think they are smart but actually aren't.
A fact so obvious and apparent only a German would even bother asking.
I will count of the list of Conservative scientists:
End of list
Yeah, well, I've never felt smarter than when conversing with a conservative.