A study conducted in Germany found that men with higher IQs are less inclined to traditional values, but the lead author, psychologist and intelligence researcher Maximilian Krolo of Saarland University, said the researchers did not find these differences among women.
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.
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.
Ran across a paper years ago that did confirm this, but laid out various reasons why, including:
As the saying goes, your kid didn’t become a “dirty leftist/commie” because they were indoctrinated by their professors. They became one as a reaction to being exposed to the wider world and all of its variety.
But was causality established? That’s a very difficult thing to do. I’d like to read the paper if you can find it.
Because it’s just as plausible that people predisposed to think critically are more likely to both go to college and move left politically in early adulthood.
Oh well, I can’t be right about everything I guess. Happy to be wrong on this.