EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A 35 year study tracking over 7,000 people from childhood into middle age, backed by research from the University of Minnesota, the University of Ghent, and British cohort studies spanning decades, found that people with higher cognitive and emotional intelligence consistently reject authoritarianism, rigid social hierarchies, and blind obedience to authority.
I find statements in these studies, such as "significantly likely", to be unconvincing unless a number is put on it. How did the researcher, or reviewer, of the study chose that phrase, and why can't it be revealed to the reader?
The failure here is in the presentation of argument. The paragraph pasted below can be pointed at Trump only by those refusing to understand that shared views are not adulation. This paragraph - more correctly - can be pointed at Obama, who rejected evidence that climate change is a hoax, that everyone who thinks differently than he is a bigot, that presenting / pretending non-complex things are “complex” (only to morons), etc.
OBTW -my IQ is 156. Your bias is showing.
“Now look at the political reality in the United States in 2026. One major political movement has built its identity around obedience to a single leader. It rejects the findings of scientists. It dismisses the conclusions of legal experts. It mocks complexity. It tells its followers exactly what to believe, who to blame, and what to fear. It frames every question as a simple binary: us or them, strong or weak, loyal or traitor.”
So, this may or may not have any relevance, but I found myself wondering if one's chosen religious, or non-religious, tradition plays any role. Rabbi Brant Rosen maintains that questioning is the cornerstone of Judaism, a trait that would certainly lend itself to anti-authoritarianism. Similarly, atheists, or at least many of them, as skeptics, would also fall into that category. Again, there may be no relevance at all but it prompted a question. And, I completely agree with those who pointed out the dismissal of women & men used as the universal standard. Also, curious about the relatively miniscule response from a group of 7,000... that's roughly 2.5%.
Yes, but this whole article is slanted. I grew up in a very liberal (in the old traditional sense) family, and was the conservative outlier. But I did come to see over the years that what is now called liberalism is actually severe authoritarianism. Liberals always believed "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That was one of the most basic premises of liberalism.
Today's "liberals" are arresting and fining or imprisoning anyone, esp. in the UK, who says anything unacceptable to them. Covid really brought out the authoritarianism of modern "liberalism", where you were supposed to unquestioningly accept whatever the "experts" and "authorities" told you to do, even if it made no sense, or was obvious they were being paid by big pharma.
So, no, as the conclusion of this article is to demonize those who believe freedom of thought and speech, I in no way agree with it's conclusion. It is very politically biased and uses what are probably accurate studies to support an invalid conclusion.
I have gotten even more liberal as I have gotten older. It took years, even decades, to move past all the embedded racism and misogyny of my childhood.
What I notice is always missing from these studies is the impact of society on gifted females. When I was small, I believed intelligence was enough to allow me to go to college and have a career of my choosing. Instead, I was not given many opportunities and told certain areas of study were for “the boys” who are “naturally better”. I was encouraged to take classes “appropriate for women”, who “just get married and have kids anyway”. I feel that I could have made more important contributions to society if I had been treated differently and not just as “a girl”.
Sigh. Early on you say this applies only to men and then go on to refer to the results as universal. Sigh. women don’t exist to you? Perhaps you could do a “global replace” and make this about males.
“Non gifted men were far more likely to endorse values tied to social order, tradition, and authority. Gifted men were far less likely to adopt those same positions.
Among women, no significant difference appeared.”
Typical to ignore how women think but given we make up half the voters and participants-shouldn’t you explain?
Does this finding mean that women, even those not considered gifted in IQ tend not to lean authoritarian or does it mean women of all IQ’s do lean authoritarian?
Why does this article treat male intelligence as the default?
It’s barely a revelation that stupid men also tend to be authoritarian. Even a dumb guy can see that that system of brute force tends to favor him especially if he’s stupid.
But what about women? What does this study say that’s important and you still fail to mention it?
I’m feeling extremely untrusting in your conclusions as they are literally only half expressed or understood.
I find statements in these studies, such as "significantly likely", to be unconvincing unless a number is put on it. How did the researcher, or reviewer, of the study chose that phrase, and why can't it be revealed to the reader?
The failure here is in the presentation of argument. The paragraph pasted below can be pointed at Trump only by those refusing to understand that shared views are not adulation. This paragraph - more correctly - can be pointed at Obama, who rejected evidence that climate change is a hoax, that everyone who thinks differently than he is a bigot, that presenting / pretending non-complex things are “complex” (only to morons), etc.
OBTW -my IQ is 156. Your bias is showing.
“Now look at the political reality in the United States in 2026. One major political movement has built its identity around obedience to a single leader. It rejects the findings of scientists. It dismisses the conclusions of legal experts. It mocks complexity. It tells its followers exactly what to believe, who to blame, and what to fear. It frames every question as a simple binary: us or them, strong or weak, loyal or traitor.”
👍
So, this may or may not have any relevance, but I found myself wondering if one's chosen religious, or non-religious, tradition plays any role. Rabbi Brant Rosen maintains that questioning is the cornerstone of Judaism, a trait that would certainly lend itself to anti-authoritarianism. Similarly, atheists, or at least many of them, as skeptics, would also fall into that category. Again, there may be no relevance at all but it prompted a question. And, I completely agree with those who pointed out the dismissal of women & men used as the universal standard. Also, curious about the relatively miniscule response from a group of 7,000... that's roughly 2.5%.
Listen to your mother.
Yes, but this whole article is slanted. I grew up in a very liberal (in the old traditional sense) family, and was the conservative outlier. But I did come to see over the years that what is now called liberalism is actually severe authoritarianism. Liberals always believed "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That was one of the most basic premises of liberalism.
Today's "liberals" are arresting and fining or imprisoning anyone, esp. in the UK, who says anything unacceptable to them. Covid really brought out the authoritarianism of modern "liberalism", where you were supposed to unquestioningly accept whatever the "experts" and "authorities" told you to do, even if it made no sense, or was obvious they were being paid by big pharma.
So, no, as the conclusion of this article is to demonize those who believe freedom of thought and speech, I in no way agree with it's conclusion. It is very politically biased and uses what are probably accurate studies to support an invalid conclusion.
Explains trump’s administration and his supporters
Trump requires obedience to his whims and laws but refuses to accept US laws and democratic voting outcomes. The GOP is now MAGA.
Since when does 158 out of 7,000 qualify as statistically significant?
I have gotten even more liberal as I have gotten older. It took years, even decades, to move past all the embedded racism and misogyny of my childhood.
What I notice is always missing from these studies is the impact of society on gifted females. When I was small, I believed intelligence was enough to allow me to go to college and have a career of my choosing. Instead, I was not given many opportunities and told certain areas of study were for “the boys” who are “naturally better”. I was encouraged to take classes “appropriate for women”, who “just get married and have kids anyway”. I feel that I could have made more important contributions to society if I had been treated differently and not just as “a girl”.
"Among women, no significant difference appeared." -- Genuinely curious, WHY was there no difference?
Is it because gifted/non-gifted women BOTH scored lower on conservatism (same as the "gifted men" category)?
Is it because they met at a middle point in between what the men got?
It's an interesting detail, I was sad there was no context around it.
Thanks for the article!
Another Idiocracy study. The problem isn’t less intelligent people. The problem is capitalism.
Sigh. Early on you say this applies only to men and then go on to refer to the results as universal. Sigh. women don’t exist to you? Perhaps you could do a “global replace” and make this about males.
Um, excuse me but this was mentioned and ignored:
“Non gifted men were far more likely to endorse values tied to social order, tradition, and authority. Gifted men were far less likely to adopt those same positions.
Among women, no significant difference appeared.”
Typical to ignore how women think but given we make up half the voters and participants-shouldn’t you explain?
Does this finding mean that women, even those not considered gifted in IQ tend not to lean authoritarian or does it mean women of all IQ’s do lean authoritarian?
Why does this article treat male intelligence as the default?
It’s barely a revelation that stupid men also tend to be authoritarian. Even a dumb guy can see that that system of brute force tends to favor him especially if he’s stupid.
But what about women? What does this study say that’s important and you still fail to mention it?
I’m feeling extremely untrusting in your conclusions as they are literally only half expressed or understood.
Immediately commented the same thing! Glad to see someone else pointed it out
Same.
MAGA supporters are dimwits according to these scientific findings.
This explains MAGA and why the Republican Party wants to destroy all forms of education.
I am not MAGA, but it is not the Republican Party that is dumbing down education. Far from it.