Caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers one never meets or interacts with is a sound prescription for the removal of one's lineage from the pool, however "intelligent" the practitioner may appear to be.

This is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Leaving aside the historical record of brilliant religious minds that shaped modern science the final assumption is silly. Perhaps most modern intellectuals adopt novel and liberal values is because that community, the modern western community of higher learning, is at atheistic. They are merely reflections of their social values. This process is janus faced - they contribute to it and it feeds back to them the same values.
Also Kanazawa says " Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid,". Here is another alternative: We see causation in connections because we experience causation directly and infer it to the world around us. We then infer causation to events that are beyond our control. We also make connections between events because our brain functions in that way - literally forming connections with each new experience. it is not paranoia, it is the shape of the universe. And neither of these propositions preclude God. In fact, I would say that these things happen because there is an "Eternal law" expressing itself in creation always creating order in it, thus expressing itself in natural law. Honestly, I think one is stupider without God. Holding the idea of God in our minds affords an openness to outside possibilities, since God is beyond our knowing. The very idea of God leads the mind outside of itself and mere experience or social convention to explore the handiwork of creation.

Please folks, don't take your metaphors and yourselves so seriously. Today's science is tomorrow's metaphor.

Why is it that IQ is "not a true measure of intelligence" when it comes to college admissions, or passing civil service exams (especially if you are a member of some "protected class" or other), or our childrens' success in school, yet liberals are so proud to tell us that their atheism and desire to tell the rest of us how to live our lives indicates their superior intelligence?

As for myself, despite my Ivy League education and master's degree, I stubbornly persist in my belief in "conservative" principles like individual freedom, personal responsibility, God, country, all that crap.

The unfortunate truth is that fifty percent of the population will always be below average. That doesn't mean they can't live fulfilling, productive lives. What they don't need is smug, self-satisfied academics telling them how backwards and unenlightened.

It's not true. It's not necessary.

And it doesn't matter.

I find this interesting, to say the least. Of course, to be so intelligent, it is ironic that every single rant and rave that Kanozowie has in his treatise, one can easily find on YouTube...just go to an athiest's channel and use the word 'God' in any post.

Too often I find myself mindlessly arguing with atheists and/or liberals on YouTube...it always starts with a mild statement or personal opinion, such as "the U.S.'s economy is in bad shape"...and of course, I feel compelled to mention that "it is because as God has been removed from the social equation in our nation, our social structure has weakened allowing such failures"...and BOOM! Might as well send a nuke into a kindergarten...here come the atheists.

The battles are often long, and drawn out...fortunately...for I wouldn't want their suffering to be shortened due to my ignorance. Their contrite egos and belief that they are better or smarter than me is comical...and I think I actually seek their insults...for calling me stupid, in my opinion, is like saying that Bill Gates is an over-rated poor guy with insufficient political influence. So...coffee-is-on with war!

Now, one of the JOYS of battling atheists is that they always demand one thing...that you MUST believe THEM! They don't want you to believe in a god, or deities or anything...but if NASA says it is, then by the CELESTIAL SPHERES, it must be TRUE! At this point, I often voice some abstract point for them...like..."you believe what you want, I will believe what I want"...and of course, their rebuttal is 3rd grade..."you are a moron and a Neandertal, since you clearly don't believe MY WAY...the ONLY WAY." Now, over time, I have noticed that atheists are scary in this fashion, for they truly are pushy...imagine such attitude with power, force or society backing them up...why...they LIKE THE CONCEPT OF THE INQUISITION...only, they want payback for abuses to scientists in the 15th century!!! Imagine the carnage, should they come to rule?!

One of their favorite tricks is to challenge, nay, dare I say, a religious person, to PROVE TO THEM that God exists...as if this would be possible...or that they would listen if you tried. Over time, I found that without fault, atheists are the absolute hardest to prove ANYTHING TO...for they are so entrenched in their dogma by the time that they come out of the closet about being atheist, that they would nary change one single iota of information in their head...unless, of course, it reinforced their standpoint...no matter how fragile it is. Now, you can always do as I do...and try to explain to them that they are free (at least for the moment, in the U.S.A.) to believe what they would like...and that no one is going to imprison them for their beliefs...but I find two things come from this: one: that they still want you to fight with them about your beliefs - at least mention your points, so they can tear into you like sharks at feeding time...and point-two: that they wish there WERE PRISONS for the likes of those who believe...for they really wish they could get some guillotine action going on the throats of ANYONE who doesn't agree with them.

Ok...so, lets see if we have this picture painted fairly, but broadly enough: Atheists are shock-troop Nazi's who want to force their will on all others, regardless of the tons of Xylon-B gas required...those that give in like passive sheep will simply be indoctrinated...and those who voice opposition will be forced to channel Carl Sagan via NASA-endorsed Ouija boards until his DNA returns to execute the unbelievers. Also, simultaneously, you will believe exactly what you are told, by the scientist-priests of officialdom, per the letter...after you download their revised updates daily. Total disregard will be paid to previous history...yes, those moments that they may have made errors, like flat earth, geocentric solar systems, canals on mars, moon of cheese, the 4-elements...all those are the past, and they would NEVER make another mistake, for as long as they live...so cross their hearts...in military triplicate.

Guys...don't write, don't call, don't fight and don't argue...If you can't see that Atheism is the New World Catholicism, complete with their own heavily armed and financed priests (aka scientific academy), then you aren't paying attention. Liberals like atheism, because it kills God...and replaces Him with something they can control...for if you can't tell science jumps like a worm stuck to a 9-volt battery when it comes to rich people financing grants for research...well...you haven't worked in science lately. Liberals had no control over an ephemeral God...but they can threaten your grants, or make them come through...depending on what you say, how you say, when you say it...and make or destroy you in the media's eyes in 5-minutes. Truth not required. Science? LOL...math is finite and verifiable...science is advanced politics driven by cloistered data locked down under security agreements.

Oh...my...that sounds just like....THE VATICAN ARCHIVES!!! Amazing...what a reincarnation of a religion it is!

Don't you guys see the that you're piling on about 15 or 20 fallacies by arguing about this study?

I would be leery of claims made linking intelligence with political affiliation and religious affinities. There is a long history of these types of "correlations" being used to elevate/demote specific groups to the detriment of societies as a whole.

If political liberalism is an indicator of superior intelligence in males, what happened to Harry Reid? I suppose that it is smart to expect others (government and liberals) to provide for a man's family rather than expecting him to fill this role. Subscribing to liberal idealism is more a measure of gullibility than intelligence.....

Old Russian saw: Under capitalism man exploits man. Under socalism it's the other way around.

They should know

I love the way liberals somehow claim a mantra of being the "caring ones" for other people:

"In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely to grow up to be liberals."

So, I guess if anyone makes a claim, it must be true. But let's look at the facts:

There is a persistent stereotype about charitable giving in politically progressive regions of America: while people on the political right may be hardworking and family-oriented, they tend not to be very charitable toward the less fortunate. In contrast, those on the political left care about vulnerable members of society, and are thus the charitable ones. Understanding “charity” in terms of voluntary gifts of money (instead of government income redistribution), this stereotype is wrong.

The fact is that self-described “conservatives” in America are more likely to give—and give more money—than self-described “liberals.” In the year 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more dollars to charity than households headed by a liberal. And this discrepancy in monetary donations is not simply an artifact of income differences. On the contrary, liberal families in these data earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families.

These differences go beyond money. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. People who said they were “conservative” or “extremely conservative” made up less than one-fifth of the population, but donated more than a quarter of the blood. To put this in perspective, if political liberals and moderates gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the United States would surge by nearly half.

Facts are curious things, they don't always fit theories. I'm one who, like most people, believes that actions speak louder than words. If Kanazawa's reasoning is accurate, then the facts of who actually exhibits caring for "genetically unrelated strangers" show that it is actually the conservatives who are more evolved. But maybe that's just my lowly, evolutionarily challenged 149 I.Q. speaking.