Viewpoint: Why are the less intelligent more likely to be conservative—and smarter people more socially liberal?

Smarter people tend to be more socially liberal — less racist, less homophobic, less nationalistic, more supportive of free speech and immigration — and the pattern shows up in study after study, according to a deep dive by Aporia Magazine’s Noah Carl. The observation isn’t new: in an 1866 House of Commons debate, after a Conservative MP accused his party of being “the stupidest party in the State,” the philosopher and Liberal MP John Stuart Mill shot back: “I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant that stupid persons are generally Conservative.”

Modern data backs him up, mildly. A 2015 meta-analysis of 67 studies by Emma Onraet and colleagues found a modest average correlation (r = .20) between intelligence and social liberalism, and a more recent study by Tobias Edwards and colleagues found an even stronger link (r = .38) that held up within sibling pairs and using genetic proxies for intelligence — evidence, Carl writes, that the relationship may be causal rather than coincidental. The pattern turns up outside English-speaking countries too: Danish liberals score nearly 14 IQ points higher than supporters of the country’s anti-immigration party, and better-educated American Jews are more likely than their less-educated peers to disapprove of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Mis- and disinformation are distorting science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of ‘disruptive’ innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

Carl is careful to note that “socially liberal” doesn’t mean “woke” or “Democrat” — plenty of Democrats hold traditional views, and plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans don’t.

Why the link exists, Carl argues, comes down to two explanations. The less flattering one: intelligent people may mistakenly assume that the freedom from social norms that works fine for them — say, casual drug use without addiction — would work fine for everyone. The more flattering one: smarter people are simply more pro-social, discounting the future less, reading other people’s intentions better, and finding novelty, and outsiders, less threatening than instinct-driven minds do.

Read the original article here

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Wave Crest Over Red Cross
Viewpoint: Here are the election-inspired Trump administration healthcare policy reversals expected in the coming months
p22_spraying_2
How climate change is driving increased pesticide usage
ChatGPT-Image-Sep-2-2026-02_03_32-PM
How much of a problem is AI’s water use?
Blue Checklist in Centered Hand
Viewpoint: From Medicaid cuts to MAHA-backed anti-vaccine and chemical hysteria, voters reject Republicans’ science-skeptical agenda
Bayer Crop Circle in Golden Wheat
Making fertilizer from thin air: Bayer’s gene-editing innovation could dramatically cut chemical fertilizer use in growing food
Democratic Donkey Plowing at Sunset
Viewpoint: Democratic tsunami: As the red tide recedes, here are the most likely shifts in food and agricultural policy
Aerial Sprayer Over Gradient Fields
Farming, food, and chemicals: Post-midterms, the MAHA alliance between Democrats and MAGA Republicans is bruised but not cowed. What comes next?
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.