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
view the rest of the comments
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.