i'm sure this is getting sent around all of the conservatives' email lists. which is cool, as long as they're also sending around the other studies showing that conservatives are more likely to have lower IQ.
truth is there is a mix of evidence and theory with all of these evolutionary studies. the evidence is often weak, the theory is sometimes persuasive and sometimes pure speculation. this is in a pretty good journal, so my sense is that it's probably more solid than most similar studies.
still, the evidence in most of these studies shows associations - between IQ and political leanings, physical strength and political leanings, etc etc. - these are usually nothing more than conditional associations that could be interpreted in a whole lot of ways: Do liberals have higher IQs b/c they're inherently smarter, or b/c liberals value higher education more, and each year of schooling raises your IQ (which is true, by the way). Or maybe higher IQ people just get indoctrinated into liberal policy perspectives as they move further and further in liberal-dominated universities?
Similarly, do the physically strong naturally lean toward conservative policy stances, or is it because they are more likely to be part of a culture that values masculinity, or b/c they value their career/education less and their physical appearance more? Or, as one of our members hypothesizes, does this really mean that conservatives have a greater work ethic!
from these associations an evolutionary theory is put forward to explain why the association might reflect some pattern of genetic selection over LONG periods of time. some are persuasive, some are ad hoc stories and nothing more.
point is, this and most other studies like this present some very basic evidence that is interesting.that evidence should lead to further research to figure out whether the association is causal or whether it's the result of some unmeasured confounder. then, theoretical work is needed to develop a persuasive explanation for what might account for the causal relatinoship (if there is one), and that theory should be subject to further test.
Instead, we get a journalist's superficial recap of an association and then lots of people seizing on the study to validate themselves and their viewpoints. not the way science should enter into public discourse.
