Why Not?

November 12, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

The premise of the question "Can men and women be friends?" is confusing. What is it that obstructs friendship between men and women, exactly? The presence of desire? The awkwardness of its absence? I know it’s a valid question, that many ask ( When Harry Met Sally is a 90 minute meditation on the issue), but still…. As a straight guy, can I have gay friends? Can a rich man be friends with someone less well-off? Can an employer be friends with an employee? A Jew and a German? A snot-nosed kid and an octogenarian? An anthropologist and a native? Of course. Each situation has its challenges, but even a little psychological sophistication would leave most adults capable of negotiating these situations. And in the final analysis, these are the friendships that are the most enriching of all — those that involve a bit of reach.

Read the rest here:
Why Not?

Let’s find the world’s best player of this game

November 12, 2008 in Blogs, Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Do you have brainy friends in your social network? We’re trying to find the best players in the world at a game of skill and luck.  About half a year ago, I posted here a game of skill and luck . Many people played, and it was interesting to see the variation in scores. Some people got it, and some just didn’t. Then I had an idea: let’s try to find some of the best players in the world at this. But how? While the world’s a big place, through social networks, it can get much smaller. As my host (I’m currently a visiting researcher at Yahoo! Research ) Duncan Watts , and others have shown, a short number of email forwards can connect two people living on opposite sides of the world: the "six degrees of separation" idea. The landmark experiment Watts was reviving was carried about by Stanley Milgram and published right here in Psychology Today (Stanley Milgram, "The Small World Problem", Psychology Today, 1967, Vol. 2, 60-67)! The same idea should work for finding smart people as well. If each person who plays the game then forwards it on to some people they know who are even better at the game, eventually we may come across a person who really gets it and achieves a fantastically long winning streak. So, let’s give it a try. Play the game for yourself . Then, following the instructions in the game, send it on to some friends who will score better. (Don’t pass on a link to this blog page, it’s important you pass on the link you see when you play the game, this way we can see how far it’s spreading). Good luck! Click here to play and then pass it on to some smart, persistent friends!

Original post: 
Let’s find the world’s best player of this game

The Power to Be Vulnerable (Part 1 of 3)

October 4, 2008 in Blogs by Psychology Today

Part 1–Denying Vulnerability: "You’re Really Making Me Angry!" To feel anxiety and not back away from whatever’s causing it requires marked self-control. Resisting the temptation to avoid anything we experience as threatening takes considerable courage. We humans are so wired that the slightest perception of danger leads to feelings of vulnerability, setting into motion the impulse to flee, freeze or dissociate. And that sudden flash of trepidation can be prompted by anything that threatens our sense of control. It could, for instance, relate to sharing ourselves personally in a way that exposes us to the other’s indifference, disapproval, or anger. When we confide our thoughts and feelings in another, we may also fear that our sharing won’t be reciprocated. Or that it could be used against us. Or that it won’t be empathized with, or validated. And our deepest sense of vulnerability arises when we find ourselves in situations that tap into primal fears of abandonment. Or evoke its opposite, engulfment–where our personal boundaries feel so threatened that we fear losing our very self. Finally, whether our self-protective impulse to escape such situations is blindly followed or consciously withstood depends on our ability to stay calm during periods of emotional imbalance. And such composure isn’t at all "natural." Rather, it’s a strength–or power –that we need to deliberately cultivate. Frequently, when we stand firm in menacing situations, we’re able to do so only through the anaesthetizing emotion of anger. Getting angry with people who provoke our distress enables us to blame and negate them, and thus neutralize the uncomfortable feelings they’re causing us. But reactively becoming angry isn’t about overcoming our anxiety so much as covering it up. All we’re really doing here is masking feelings of uneasiness or insecurity by summoning up a self-vindicating sense of righteousness. For example, when a person experienced as crucial to our welfare (say, our spouse) sharply criticizes us, we’re likely to feel threatened, our emotional equilibrium suddenly turned upside down. Very few of us can simply "sit" with the criticism, objectively evaluate its merits, and respond accordingly. On the contrary, unless we depressively slink away from our mate, we’re likely to experience a strong urge to react antagonistically–attempting to protect against the felt assault to our self-esteem by either strenuously defending ourselves or by attacking them right back. Thrown off balance by the criticism, desperate to restore a positive sense of self, we look for a way– any way–to discredit our "assailant." But the immediate sense of strength our defensive anger yields is finally much less like bravery than bravado. And beyond allaying our anxiety, it doesn’t solve a thing. We haven’t coped with the threatening situation by sharing honestly and directly about how it made us feel (i.e., vulnerable), but merely substituted a much less disturbing feeling to camouflage our distress. For the moment, we’ve successfully resorted to anger to quiet our fears, but this anxiety reduction has been achieved mostly at our partner’s expense. And when we get into the habit of alleviating uncomfortable feelings by getting mad at our spouse, we invariably end up creating more discord in our relationship–setting ourselves up for continuing conflict (and of course the need for more and more anger). Power struggles in relationships are in fact mostly efforts to get our dependency needs met without ever confessing to our mate the anxiety their refusal would cause us. And typically we’re not at all conscious of how much our deepest feelings of security hinge on our partner’s positive response. Yet even if we were aware of the primal source of our relational fears and frustrations, it’s unlikely we’d be willing to take the risk of straightforwardly admitting these unmet needs–whether for attention, reassurance, empathy, support, validation, or simple warmth. The readiness to honestly and unashamedly admit these needs simply calls for more psychological courage than most of us have available. To betray just how dependent on our spouse we were (with all the vulnerability such dependency implies) would likely only exacerbate our most secret fear that we couldn’t be sufficiently cared about–or that maybe we weren’t even worth being so cared about. And if we were actually to reveal just how much power our partner had over our feelings, how could we avoid further endangering our sense of personal safety in the relationship? Along with our fears, most of us also feel a certain shame about divulging our dependencies. After all, as adults it’s almost always considered a virtue to be autonomous and self-reliant, whereas the mere suggestion of neediness is generally associated with being weak. So even though all of us may have quite legitimate dependency needs left over from childhood, revealing our hurt feelings when they’re not being met would expose our susceptibility to a degree that hardly seems tenable. And so we’re far more likely to criticize our partners when they ignore or deny us–or angrily demand from them what they’ve already refused–than to openly confess feelings of deprivation. But by self-protectively reacting to them negatively and taking out our frustrations on them, we decrease yet further the chance that in the future they’ll be more inclined to provide us with the succor we may so desperately need from them. Anger is certainly one of the most common ways we protect against feeling vulnerable. But how do we counteract such feelings without defaulting to the pseudo-empowering reaction of anger? When we’re feeling accused, devalued, powerless, rejected, or unloved, how do we stay in touch with the anxiety these feelings typically generate and literally think ourselves out of anxiety–eventually getting to the other side where we’re able to feel safe and okay? How, in short, can we muster the strength to deal more openly with all the things that imperil our sense of well-being? Psychologically, accomplishing this feat of staying present and holding onto our emotional poise when it feels under siege may well be one of our greatest challenges in life. But if we can develop this ability, we’ll likely discover a sense of personal power greater than any we’ve ever experienced. And in learning how to share our hurts–and our fears of being hurt–we may at last realize our potential for emotional intimacy, one of the greatest rewards of a committed relationship. Cultivating such an invaluable personal resource–one that may well represent the ultimate in self-control–lies in our ability to (1) self-validate, and (2) self-soothe. NOTE: Part 2 of this post will center on how we can become more self-validating, while Part 3 will take up the various ways we can learn to better soothe ourselves.  

Here is the original post:
The Power to Be Vulnerable (Part 1 of 3)

And the Winner Is . . . Katie Couric

October 3, 2008 in Blogs by Psychology Today

Okay ,okay, so Sarah Palin didn’t fall on her face. Given the format, for her to fail big in last night’s vice-presidential debates would have taken a miracle . But the two post-debate instant polls, from CBS and CNN , give telling results. CNN, in a national sounding, had Joseph Biden’s performance preferred over Palin’s 51-36, about the same margin by which viewers favored Barak Obama’s over John McCain’s (51-38) in the debate that preceded Obama’s recent surge in the electoral polls. CBS, sampling undecided voters, not surprisingly got a "tied" response from 33 per cent. But those "undecideds" willing to name a winner chose Biden two to one; the actual percentages were 46 to 21, Biden over Palin. After the prior debate, CBS had the undecideds favoring Obama over McCain only slightly less strongly, 39-25. In terms of her "preparedness" to be president, with the CBS uncommiteds Palin brought her numbers only up to 44 per cent; CBS reports that "In contrast, almost all uncommitted voters think Biden would be an effective president." Only 42 per cent of CNN respondents ended by considering Palin qualified. We’ll know more early next week, as the debate works any effects it might have on voting trends in the electoral polls, but on the face of it, last night the Obama-Biden ticket got a boost. And as a number of commentators have pointed out, as each debate is checked off, the opportunities for McCain and Palin to regain ground diminishes. Still, amidst all the good news for Democrats, one statistic leaps out: in the CNN poll, 84 per cent of respondents said that Palin exceeded expectations. Remarkable, no? She showed herself unqualified, and that result was better than viewers had anticipated. On what were the astoundingly low initial expectations based? Not Palin’s convention speech, which wowed her audience. No, voters’ impressions of Palin had been shaped by Katie Couric’s interviews and, perhaps, the Saturday Night Live reworking of them. The 84 per cent figure is a tribute not to Sarah Palin, who still looks unfit to hold office, but to the legitimate power of the press. Couric unmasked Palin, and not through "gotcha" questions but by asking, in effect, "What newspaper do you read?" Perky, farewell. To my mind, Couric has earned herself a Pulitzer Prize. Regarding curiosity, wisdom, and the rest – qualities I referred to in my posting yesterday and about which readers demurred – The New York Times ended its lead editorial today with these two sentences: "The problem with Ms. Palin’s candidacy, which she underscored in her appearance at the debate on Thursday night, is not that she didn’t attend a fancy school or go backpacking in Europe after college. It is her disdain for knowledge, education, experience and contemplative leadership." My opinion precisely. Perhaps there was a brouhaha at the Times over that tartly expressed view. The on-line posting of the editorial omits the print version’s powerful final two paragraphs. Addendum — For those who do not have access to a hard copy of the Times editorial, I am transcribing the original ending here, beginning with the final sentence of the antepenultimate graf.The style is harsh; I assume that a determined writer slipped this material past the board (the uncharacteristic repetition of "shocking" is a clue) and was later reined in. But here goes, from the "newspaper of record," an extraordinary indictment: “Picking Ms. Palin was either an act of incredible cynicism or appallingly bad judgment. “The ensuing weeks cemented those images in our minds. Ms. Palin initially injected some energy into the McCain campaign, especially among members of the right-wing Republican base, who never liked or trusted the Arizona senator — and still do not. Then, she began lurching from one embarrassing public appearance to another, culminating in her shocking performance in interviews with Katie Couric. In those exchanges, Ms. Palin was inarticulate and shockingly unable to answer the most basic questions about government policy and even her own political philosophy. “The Republicans have tried to present the negative reaction to Ms. Palin as a matter of liberal elites sneering at someone who does not share their privileged backgrounds. That is a distraction. The problem with Ms. Palin’s candidacy, which she underscored in her appearance at the debate on Thursday night, is not that she didn’t attend a fancy school or go backpacking in Europe after college. It is her disdain for knowledge, education, experience and contemplative leadership.”

Read the original post: 
And the Winner Is . . . Katie Couric

Palin is more like Bush than Bush himself, Part I: Lack of curiosity

October 3, 2008 in Blogs by Psychology Today

Palin has energized the bases, both of them. On the right, she has been greeted as a rock star, while on the left she has been described as reason to move to Canada, if she wins. But how much do we know about Palin and how she thinks? Palin bears an eerie resemblance to George Bush, and psychologically, she is even more extreme than Bush himself on the many of the dimensions that have made him arguably the worst president in US history. As bad as things are now, someday, under President Palin, we may look back upon today’s bleak times as the good old days. Palin is an ideologue who is not interested in varied ideas and opinions, but only the views of her church and her inner circle. She values loyalty above competence, faith above science, and she is animated by a messianic, indeed an apocalyptic Christian faith. Lack of intellectual curiosity One factor former president Bill Clinton has mentioned in interviews as one of Obama’s most important qualifications is his curiosity. Intellectual curiosity was one of Clinton’s greatest assets as president. While he is well known as a "policy wonk," most people have no idea how widely he read, and how much he retained. And Clinton recognizes the same essential trait in Obama. Clinton stopped mentioning curiosity, perhaps because it sounded vaguely condescending-but Clinton knows what a very important qualification it is. Look at the consequences of having a president who is deficient in curiosity: George Bush. Bush, the decider, knows what he knows (even when it’s wrong) and he isn’t interested in contradictory facts or arguments. The contrast between the two men couldn’t be starker on this dimension, and it explains a lot of why Clinton’s presidency was a success and Bush’s a huge failure. Palin by contrast appears to read almost nothing at all. She was recently interviewed by Katie Couric who asked what newspapers she read. She asked three times, and Palin could not mention one. Not one! She didn’t even just fake it and say Washington Post or New York Times. "I’ve read most of them," she said. "What, specifically?" Couric responded. "Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years." "Can you name a few?" "I have a vast variety of source where we get our news," Palin said. "Alaska isn’t a foreign country, where it’s kind of suggested, ‘wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?’ Believe me; Alaska is like a microcosm of America." There is a longstanding anti-intellectual streak in the Republican Party that derides Democratic eggheads going all the way back to Adlai Stevenson in favor of people of action with supposedly good values and instincts. But the truth is, running America is complicated. And simplistic ideology based policies can have disastrous consequences on a global scale. In a rare self -lampoon at a press club dinner Bush joked that one of his professors wrote a book at Yale, and he read one. But this reading deficit is no joke. No child left behind? What about a nation left behind? Not only does Palin appear to read few books or newspapers, she doesn’t want anyone else to read them either if they are the wrong type of books. She tried to have the Wasilla librarian fired for refusing to ban books. This raises anti-intellectualism to a new low. In group-groupthink Even if she’s not a reader, would Palin at least entertain a diversity of ideas if they were presented to her? Not likely. In a highly publicized public letter, Palin’s Wasilla neighbor, Anne Kilkenny wrote, "She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them." In this she mirrors the decision making process of George Bush, the "decider," who makes up his mind quickly, in response to input from a few key ideologically driven neo-conservative advisors, and then never reviews, reflects or revises his views in response to contradictory information or arguments. This decision making style makes for orderly brief staff meetings, a disciplined on-message team and catastrophic decisions. Bill Clinton’ decision making style was the opposite extreme, involving marathon meetings where contrasting opinions were argued endlessly, testing the participants’ patience and even physical endurance. Alan Blinder, a member the economic team, admitted that the process had the "superficial appearance of chaos." Indeed, "if one peered into the room, they would see open pizza boxes, wastepaper baskets full of trash, and lots of people milling about talking at once." The proof was in the pudding. The economy soared under Clinton, and Alan Greenspan gives Clinton much of the credit. The messy creative process was not a weakness, as it was portrayed, but a strength. "That was a strength of the meetings, not a weakness, because governments make bigger mistakes when the president is kept in a bubble and only hears one opinion." When a leader forms opinions in bubble, as Bush and Palin do, then big mistakes are more likely to get made. When George Bush took over the White House he campaigned as a fiscal conservative. However, by doggedly pursuing an ideologically driven tax cut policy, he turned record surpluses into record deficits. And now the taxpayers will be responsible for a 700 billion dollar bailout. In this way also, Palin is Bush’s twin. According to Kilkenny, "Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a ‘fiscal conservative.’ She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million." But never, at any point did Bush or Palin ever seem to wonder: What if I’m wrong? Is there a better way to grow the economy? It’s the failure to question, the failure to be curious that is so dangerous. One can be utterly certain, and utterly wrong, while driving the country over a cliff. John D. Gartner is author of In Search of Bill Clinton: A Psychological Biography

Read the rest here:
Palin is more like Bush than Bush himself, Part I: Lack of curiosity

New Heights of Dishonesty in the Government

September 29, 2008 in Blogs by Psychology Today

Every time I think that cheating in the public sector cannot possibly get worse I get amazed. Here is a report from the New York Times , that I find just unbelievable. The basic story is that the Interior Department agency responsible for collecting oil and gas royalties has been caught up in a wide-ranging ethics scandal – including allegations of financial self-dealing, accepting gifts from energy companies, cocaine use, and sexual misconduct. I am not going to summarize it but here are my 2 reflections: 1) Will Congress actually do something with these reports and take some action to correct the situation (I suspect not)? 2) Was it relatively easy for the Interior Department agency that collects oil and gas royalties to be dishonest given the general lack of morality in the oil and gas industry? In other words, does the lack of ethical behavior in the corporate world also transfer to the government branches that are dealing with these sectors? I suspect that the answer is "yes" and this is very troubling – since the government agencies that need to be more honest are the ones dealing with more corrupt industries. Sadly yours   Dan

View post: 
New Heights of Dishonesty in the Government

McCain-Obama and 10 Rounds to a Draw…Sorta

September 27, 2008 in Psychology Today by Psychology Today

  The candidate debate was everywhere last night. I watched it on CBS because they provide the clearest HD transmission in my area. I was informed by some people who met McCain that he looks much older in person than he does on TV and that they figured that when he appeared on the same stage as Obama this age disparity would have the same audience effects that the now-historical but still famous reference point of the Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 where Nixon, ill-counseled by his make-up people, looked old, tired, like a Herblock cartoon of a "suspicious character" given Nixon’s perpetual, heavy 5 o’clock shadow. As some of you may know, read about, or have witnessed this debate, Kennedy looked young, handsome, vital, while Nixon looked like…like Nixon on a bad skin, eye, jowl day. At the time, Kennedy was only 4 years younger than Nixon but he looked a decade younger. Polls of people who listened on the radio or watched on TV found that radio listeners gave Nixon the edge while TV watchers gave Kennedy the edge. The results of these "media-specific exit polls" changed forever how candidates would appear. Makeup and telegenic grooming became the order of the day for all politicians appearing on TV, especially when making formal or pre-arranged speeches (as compared with, for example, being briefly interviewed on camera while scooting from one meeting to another on Capitol Hill). Some older actors and performers I knew in Hollywood were less discriminating. Whenever they left the house they put on makeup. Little Richard and Kirk Douglas were of that ilk. "Not that there’s anything wrong with that." Hell, I dye my beard-the goatee part –and perform other cosmetic rituals on my hair. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. But back to Obama-McCain. In my humble opinion, McCain did not look any older in HD than he does on LD (low definition) TV. I expected a prune and witnessed someone a little more plumy. McCain actually looked pretty good for a 72 year old. So, the debate focused more on what they said (substance, but no new substance) than how the candidates looked. I doubt that too many people were listening to the debate on radio-at least not in the U.S. – so, no Kennedy-Nixon comparisons are likely. A couple of other physical points: The camera arrangements were such that there was only a few brief moments when they stood next to each other; before the debate actually started and after they debate was over. This is not unimportant because Obama is very much taller than McCain and, stats tell us, taller candidates generally beat shorter candidates. The only recent exception to that was when Bush 43 (Dubya) beat Al Gore and maybe the height discrepancy score card was why Gore walked over to Bush during one of the debates and looked "down" on him while Bush was responding to a question and Gore had no obvious reason for going over to Bush. It was one of the weird moments in presidential debates. According to post-debate pundit quips and audience reactions, that "stage walk" and Gore’s stiff-bodied sighs throughout that debate as Bush was replying to questions from panelists, evidently hurt Gore and may have helped GWB win the very close 2000 election (with of course, the help of the Supreme Court–you didn’t think I was going to leave that out, did you?). Obama also looked more relaxed, presidential, in control…but not without some initial stage nervousness. McCain looked nervous over the course of the debate, even when he was making strong points about his position or about Obama’s inexperience, and flashed his Charlie Chaplain smarmy smirk throughout the debate in order to communicate his disrespect for what Obama was saying, had said, or was trying to say, or for Obama’s voting record. It’s a nervous little smile, not the wide, Presidential smile that Obama repeatedly flashed (oh my God, how can I be so unabashedly biased!?) In other words, McCain was intent on "dissin’ " Obama at every opportunity. Obama was rather significantly more respectful. Whether the red meat and the "elite" viewers appreciated this difference is unknown to me at this point. But the low-road, high-road strategy has worked very well, I fear, for McCain and his Rovian advisers to this point, and has frustrated many of Obama’s supporters who want a little less watercress and a little more chopped steak on their candidate’s campaign style menu. Who won the night? Don’t know. And I didn’t wait to hear the spin doctors Greek and Hallelujah choruses in the debate’s aftermath; so very, very surreal. McCain’s only popping misstep, so far as I can tell, was saying that he wanted to cut federal subsidies for ethanol. He may want to but it’s not a good idea to say so in a nationally televised debate unless you can make sure that you can execute a power outage for the entire mid-West at that exact moment. As for Obama, I only know that I would have liked him to be less stiff, relaxed enough to make his points with a looser flourish, and to have dropped in a few jokes every now and then. Something else: If Obama had remembered that McCain’s Saint Patraeus had said that you couldn’t really use the term victory when it comes to Iraq, it would have helped him since McCain threw the surge and victory words around like confetti and seemed to want us all to pray at the alter of his friend, the General of Surge. But, Obama didn’t and more’s the pity. Maybe next time. As for now, we must wait for the event of the debate season – Sister Sarah vs. Sir Joseph of Biden. Could be a hoot…or a horror.    

Excerpt from: 
McCain-Obama and 10 Rounds to a Draw…Sorta

Obama vs. McCain—Do Children and Divorce Count?

September 27, 2008 in Blogs by Psychology Today

Among recent elected presidents, all but Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. had an only child or two children and only one president has been divorced. When tracking how many children the last 10 elected presidents have had, the number is quite small. Will the trend continue? Like the general population, for almost 75 years our presidents have moved in the direction of smaller families . There is a pattern. The Count George W. Bush -2 children Bill Clinton -1 child George H. W. Bush -5 children (and a son who died as a child) Ronald Reagan -2 + 3 children Jimmy Carter -1 child Gerald Ford -4 children (Ford was not an elected president) Richard Nixon -2 children Lyndon B. Johnson -2 children John F. Kennedy -2 children Dwight D. Eisenhower – 1 child (his other son died at age 3) Harry S. Truman -1 child —————————————– Franklin D. Roosevelt -5 children (and a son who died before his first birthday) Of the last 10 elected presidents, only two had more than two children. Gerald Ford became president after Richard Nixon resigned and served out the remainder of what was Nixon’s second term. He was not elected or re-elected. Ronald Reagan had two children with former first lady, Nancy Reagan and three with his first wife. With the exception of Geroge Bush, Sr. and Reagan, we have to go back to Franklin D. Roosevelt, our 32nd President, elected in 1933, to find an elected president with many children. Roosevelt fathered six children; five were alive during his presidency. Obama -2; McCain -4+3 Obama has two children. McCain has more children than any president among the last dozen. He has seven (four as the biological father and three adopted) including one with his first wife Carol and her two sons whom he adopted, the three children he fathered with Cindy McCain and a daughter they adopted. If the remarried candidate becomes president, he will be the second ever divorced president-Ronald Reagan is the only divorced president thus far. And, if the candidate with fewer children becomes our president, can the number of children a presidential hopeful has become a factor worth noting in future elections? The significance of this exercise is to be determined.

Read more here:
Obama vs. McCain—Do Children and Divorce Count?

Conservatives are Dumber—And Smarter—Than Liberals

September 26, 2008 in Psychology Today by Psychology Today

Democrats are fond of declaring that those who vote Republican are on the shorter end of the bus. One line of argument goes that Grand Old Partiers are just not bright enough to figure out what’s best for the nation, or even themselves. Another insinuates that they lack the faculties to deal with nuanced issues and therefore hold fast to absolutes: ALL fetuses are full people; ALL taxes go to gay crack-addicted single moms on welfare. Indeed, some studies have supported such a simple correlation between political views and intelligence, but new research soon to be published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences paints a more muddied-and interesting-red and blue picture of IQ. Sociologist Markus Kemmelmeier compared college students’ self-professed political views to their SAT and ACT scores (which are imperfect but useful measures of cognitive ability.) First, he did find a general trend that social conservatives (those who wanted to ban abortion and gay marriage) weren’t as gifted as students with a more progressive take on gender roles. But he found the exact opposite pattern with anti-regulation attitudes: The conservatives/libertarians (yay guns boo taxes) appeared to be smarter than their commie compatriots. Kemmelmeier found this crossover "particularly surprising" and says, "It highlights (yet again) that ‘conservatism’ is not necessarily a coherent construct, but that you have to distinguish at minimum social conservatism and economic conservatism (libertarianism). If you think about it: Jerry Falwell and Milton Freedman are worlds apart." Kemmelmeier found another pattern in his data, one supporting the previously-suggested idea that holding unpopular political views demands more cognitive resources. Those with the strongest beliefs, either way red or way blue, are smarter than the wishy washy centrists too confused to stake their own ground. (All of these findings only applied to verbal intelligence. Math skills had no correlation with conservatism.) "I expected to find in some ways more of the same-old, that primarily more liberal views are linked to higher ability levels," Kemmelmeier says. "But, boy, this would be very wrong-at least as a general conclusion." For his next study, Kemmelmeier got away from surveying elitist college kids. He used intelligence data drawn from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the 2004 state-by-state proportions of Democratic lawmakers, and voter turnout rates. States that had higher IQ’s also voted more Democrats into office-but only if political involvement was high. In states with low voter turnout, high IQ was correlated with having more Republican lawmakers. What does it all mean? Theorize at will. According to Kemmelmeier, "WHY political involvement moderates the direction of the link between conservatism/liberalism is something that needs to be explored more in the future." Neither of the studies answer whether cognitive ability influences political orientation, or vice versa, or whether a third factor influences them both. Kemmelmeier notes that the first option makes more sense than the second, given that intelligence is more dependent upon genes than is political orientation. But of course voting for an incompetent president or vice president can have the effect of making you FEEL so much smarter, if simply by comparison.

Excerpt from: 
Conservatives are Dumber—And Smarter—Than Liberals

Gay and Fecund

September 26, 2008 in Blogs by Psychology Today

John Cheever was gay, or bisexual. His daughter, Susan Cheever, is a sex addict . Any connection? In the specific case, no one knows, but a new theory about the genetics of homosexuality predicts that female relatives of gay men will be heterosexual and hypersexual. As evidence grew that male homosexuality is partly innate, evolutionary biologists wondered how it is that the genes responsible for the trait survive. This year, Italian researchers published the results of studies that suggest an answer. They elaborate a model in which two genes, at least one on the X chromosome, tend to make a carrier "androphilic." Men with the genes are drawn to men . . . as are women. The theory predicts that if you look at a pedigree that contains male homosexuals and bisexuals, you should also find women who have sex early and promiscuously – and who therefore are likely to bear many children. This two-gene model answers the apparent Darwinian paradox. Yes, male homosexuals are less fecund, but their fecund female relatives more than make up for the deficit in offspring, thus allowing the relevant genes to prosper. An analysis of population genetics supports the hypothesis. The key finding is that maternal aunts of male homosexuals have more children than do corresponding paternal aunts. (Men get their Y chromosome from the father’s side of the family, and their X chromosome from the mother’s.) Also, mothers of homosexual men are more fecund than mothers of heterosexuals. The model counts bisexual men as homosexual. It does not explain female homosexuality, which appears to be less heritable and more environmental. For those who find the statistics daunting, Slate has published a thoughtful popular summary of the findings. If the theory holds, the "genes favoring male homosexuality," or GFMH, provide a buffer against extinction in lean times. When a population is under pressure, as say, in the face of famine, it may pay for it to contain women who are so sex-driven that they will procreate no matter the circumstances. Of course, we have no information about the genetics of the Cheever family. But an interview in the New York Times today made me think of the androphilic gene theory. Susan Cheever, a noted writer and daughter of the truly distinguished author, John Cheever, discusses her newest memoir, Desire: Where Sex Meets Addiction . Ms. Cheever writes: "When my daughter was in the hospital and a lover of mine came to see if he could help, I went back to my apartment and slept with him. Moving men, doctors, lawyers, book salesmen – any man associated with a threatening change in my life became erotically charged, with predictable results." In a line that may make many an author bitter and jealous, she says, "The book rep was a classic one for me too – the guy who controlled whether or not the book sold. And you know, he made the book a best seller." So: there may be more than one advantage to androphilia. Parenthetically, Susan Cheever has had three marriages and two children . Time will tell whether the sex-linked GFMH theory holds up. Meanwhile it provides fodder for parlor games. Think of your gay male friends – and then their near female relations. It’s cruelly amusing to think that his bisexuality, which so tormented John Cheever, may account for the perpetuation of his gene line via his correspondingly tormented daughter.

Read the rest here: 
Gay and Fecund