More political as in more partisan / dogmatic then definitely not. "Smart people" don't get emotional when discussing politics, can appreciate and understand opposing arguments and can hold contradictory views simultaneously.

You seem to be thinking of poli-sci / sociology / english / etc. types at HYP, and referencing this experience of yours isn't too smart because these people were 19 when you were at HYP - and college students involving themselves in politics for the first time are overly zealous, naive and very close-minded in their original political views.

I didn't go to HYP - but I studied pure math and economics at a top school then did a phd in statistics at a top program (not hyp). I've worked with and am good friends with biomed people, pure mathematicians who worked at NSA, NASA, Los Alamos, famous statisticians (professors i still keep up with), econometricians etc. Granted these are all highly selected personality types given the STEM associations - but I have yet to discuss politics with one highly intelligent person in my life that got super defensive or emotional about their political views.

In fact I left off an entire category of people - maybe call these apolitical types - but they just saw the absurdity of politics (e.g. how politicians even on your own side inevitably have to manipulate / lie to their side/voters to motivate people) and decided to not involve themselves or care at all.

edit: But if I had to make a best guess on my personal experiences (I'm sure people here may have seen different) - I would say that the modal political views of highly intelligent people I've known are something like: socially liberal / libertarian (NOT progressive / sjw), and economically ranges from slightly center-left to solid center-right, but overall pretty economically moderate relative to the avg voter (understands the danger of growing govt power, inefficiency of a huge bureaucracy, mistrust of govt - while at the same time understanding the need for some social insurance and regulation of negative externalities like polution)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368241)

If you're smart but still want to play house on Earth = conservative

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35367593)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35367633)

if you think its every man for themselves then youll lift because you're scared.

there are obviously a ton of other related effects. Ie. libs live in cities and don't need physical strength. Cons live on farms.

All this to say its not like you pick your political views at 22 and all the dudes that lifted weights and have high t pick republican.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35367684)

I think a more plausible explanation is that men who are confident and strong think they can provide for themselves and wouldn't see the need for social insurance in case something happens. Whereas weaker men have more to gain by "sharing" in the productive output of everyone.

Just like it's not surprising that income is correlated with voting R.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368270)

It shouldn't be surprising that voters having an income

< 50k overwhelmingly vote Democrat, while (ignoring Trump for now) voters who make > 100k favored e.g. Romney, bush etc. - Romney won these voters even in NY and CA, not by a ton but still. Like I said there's a lot more involved but it should be completely intuitive why these trends exist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368484)

put aside "virtue signaling" and other social stuff, I think there are a lot of smart true believer liberals, like people who support these ideas to the hilt when alone and drunk. it makes me wonder if they're truly right sometimes.

my best guess is a majority of smart people are born to smart and financially successful parents. they assume everyone is like that and it makes sense to spread the wealth around and assume more education fixes problems. their idea of a poor person is some smart equally well-off (in terms of family wealth) friend who spent 9 years in grad school doing research.

most of the smart conservative people I know grew up poor. many grew up in communist/socialist nations outside the US.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35367650)

like growing up prole I was always taught to never trust anyone, especially people out for your money or promising big things. that is apex prole survival 101. otherwise you'll end up like your poor neighbors hooked on drugs or paying $8000 for a sofa through rent-a-center.

same thing with foreigners. I worked for a guy from Belarus who was told his family would get very wealthy if he studied Physics and worked to build bombs for the Soviet Union. it was utter crap. he left and came to the US and wouldn't vote for a government program ever again if his life depended on it.

meanwhile the people who grew up UMC aren't afraid of authority. worst case the cops bust up their beer party but generally the system works well and works in their favor. it makes sense that they wouldn't question it much.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35367825)

The people we're considering high IQ are usually academics, who face absurd amounts of social pressure to conform in some ways (you're basically a bitch until tenure decision, even then it's just a new hierarchy you join).

Academics are a highly highly self-selected group that selects for certain personality traits. To become an academic - you forgo years and years during your prime in order to spend it in a library / office on the third floor of your department. Think of top undergrads and the choices they face - e.g. law / med school, wall street, silicon valley, etc., then a phd.

The types of people who choose to do a phd instead of working in quant finance, or tech or w/e - are very particular personality types who have a lot of, in fact all of IME, their identity tied up in their intelligence and having others see them as intelligent. So their undergrad counterpart with the same IQ but different personality will look at a phd and say fuck that I'm going to med school or I'm going to consulting / finance and making $$$ immediately.

Then there's the influence of media, hollywood etc. reinforcing stereotypes about conservatives being rural religious racist idiots - all of which academics obviously want to avoid like the plague lest their colleagues sneer at them and someone on earth actually think they aren't the smartest person ever.

Besides the absolute top tier academic physicists / mathematicians, many academics weren't necessarily the very top of their undergrad class, of course they did extremely well i'm just saying most cases there were similar counterparts who did just as well but went to med school or quant finance or something instead of a phd. I can't stress this enough how much not just getting a phd but becoming an academic highly selects for very particular personality types that are correlated with a higher propensity to be liberal. Their undergrad counterparts who did just as well academically are very well conservatives (economically) since this personality type is more interested in working immediately and starting their life.

Also people just look at the BETWEEN group variation here - that academics are higher IQ and more liberal therefore IQ is correlated with liberalism. As a statistician I have to remind people to also look at the WITHIN group variation - i.e. the within academia group differences. When you do this you actually see a reversed correlation - in other words within academia, the LOWER IQ departments (sociology, black studies, education, English, ...) are MORE liberal, while the HIGHER IQ departments (math, CS, engineering, stats, physics, econ etc.) are LESS liberal.

So within academia the correlation between IQ and liberalism is actually reversed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368402)

IQ <80 who cares

IQ 80-90 mostly lib

IQ 90-100 white trash conservatives

IQ 100-110 pretty even split of neckbeards and shitlibs

IQ 110-140 largely lib, some conservatives

IQ >140 largely libertarian

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35367711)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

"Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35367735)

scientific american is pretty much the epitome of fake news

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35367742)

Low character as well, but rancid lib foremost. You are obviously right, and I tend to be anxious myself so I also help prove that point.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368139)

i thought u were one of the more reasonable libs. guess i was wrong

Date: February 9th, 2018 11:25 PM

Author: .,;'.,;'.,.;'.,.;'.,,.;,;.;,.''';[;.,,'

lol it's pretty much the opposite

scientific american is pretty much the epitome of fake news

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368308)

you guys have made "conservative anxiety" a demonstrable, empirical scientific fact here and I just don't see that as true.

most libs I know (and I have worked on Dem campaigns since 2004) are neurotic and hypercrazy and most conservatives seem pretty chill and set in their ways, so forgive me for being a bit skeptical on the overall premise. the whole subthread and how fervently some of you have proven your "anxiety" is a bit bizarre.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368386)

Utter shamelessness in employing deceit is yet another hallmark of your filthy kind.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368309)

I just remember 'disgust' was a major one for conservatives they were more likely to be disgusted - which relates to their in-group preferences, since there have been many studies recently showing similar levels of empathy or charitableness in both groups - but liberals direct it at larger groups but conservatives aim it at smaller social groups (like their church).

There was also a summary (maybe scott alexander? i can't remember who did this) that did a really good job of giving an informal meta-analysis of IQ research relating to political ideology - and basically it said for a while there was thought to be a ~+4 pt. difference favoring liberals, but recently they've done a better job defining "liberalism" b/c the definitions used were very U.S.-centric and social-centric, but after correcting it's now like +1-2 which is nothing for all practical purposes - although the variance of each distribution would be interesting.

If libs ever give shit about IQ differences calling conservatives stupid you can just tell them that the difference in averages is like 8 times more if you discriminate by race than by political affiliation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368464)

when i was a kid i was convinced of the existence of santa claus.

that said, i do slightly lean toward some form of deism. which my computer program theory is certainly compatible with (pun intended).

but when it boils down to it, there's just no way to know. i think there's certainly more than we understand. but that's the problem: we can't understand.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368344)

You are incorrectly assuming that smart ppl being liberal implies that the ppl with high cognitive capabilities freely used their thinking prowess to discern the truth and ended up with liberalism. if your assumption is true then your argument is correct wrt the superiority of liberalism vs conservatism. but we all know that 90% of high IQ libs are either faking it or will never venture an inch beyond the overton window so their adherence to liberalism is more due to culture/psychology/social conditioning than smartness

take boondocks or bluesmoke for example. obviously both are smart and well above average IQ. do you think their position on race/SAT score gap will be based on a rigorous unconstrained analysis of all possible factors?

also you are overestimating the dominance of liberals within the high IQ cohort. it will be much closer (60/40) than what you think

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368195)

radical tradcaths - dont know much about catholicism but any western tradition that emphasizes traditional way of life with regard to religion, gender is very welcome. we don't have the time/luxury to nitpick here considering the state of christianity/west

the other 3 - trash and kind of untermensch. human potential is unlimited and the ones that can't dominate drift into these philosophies by overthinking too much. peter the great and genghis khan didn't ponder the meaning of life and write over complicated bullshit. they just straight up CUM BLASTED the world

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35368239)

Liberals are over represented among academics and some other types of professionals for cultural reasons and those types of people WANT you to think all smart people are liberals. But its just not true.

Look at election exit polls broken down by income: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

Trump won all of the highest earning groups. He won people making 50-100k, people making 100k-200k, people making 200k-250k, and people making 250k+. Hillary only won with people making less than 50k. And Trump's margins among the highest earners were smaller than usual, due to his uniquely populist and controversial rhetoric. Romney won high earners by even more than Trump in his losing effort in 2012.

What do you think is a better sign of intelligence? Some bullshit ph.d in gender studies or making more than 250k?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3888536&forum_id=2#35371141)