Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Unintelligent snowflakes are the ones suppressing free speech

Dan echoes a question brought up by others with regards to the GSS showing a strong correlation between high IQ and support for free speech:
It is most interesting that support for Free Speech is tightly correlated with IQ.

But then, I wonder if that is just a relic of high IQ people knowing that free speech is the 'right answer'.

Every time a high profile conservative tries to speak at a university now, they face an attempted shutdown, which is successful a high percentage of the time. Universities are not condemning the students but siding with them. Police are the ones upholding free speech rights.
My suspicion is that the students who are making the biggest ruckus are not the sharpest ones on campus. The administrators are intimidated. The professors leading the charge are doofuses like this and the ones who provide fodder for Z-Man's weekly XirlScience segments, not top engineering or chemistry professorial talent.

The following graph shows the percentages of college graduates born in the US, by IQ as measured from Wordsum scores, who support the right for racists, communists, homosexuals, militarists, and atheists to all speak publicly. For contemporary relevance responses are from 2000 onward (N = 1,263):

Educational attainment does appear to associated with tolerance of free speech independent of intelligence, but a strong relationship remains even among the well-educated.

The braying rabble on display here are nowhere near the top of their class:

Is it implausible to suspect that a majority of them are at Yale on account of some sort of academic affirmative action favoritism?

The seeming ever-increasing calls for censorship on college campuses is surely not unrelated to this:

Graduated inIQ

Idiocracy beckons.

GSS variables used: WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), SPKATH, SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKMIL, SPKCOM, DEGREE(3-4), BORN(1), YEAR(2000-2016)


Dan said...

On the topic of free speech, i just became convinced that conservatives need to side with net neutrality. Corporations have proven eager to censor conservative thought. If ISPs can do this too, very bad news.

Realist said...

Why would this white guy try to appease these low life assholes?
To keep his cushy job I would guess.

Anonymous said...

It is astounding to me that the average IQ of college graduates is average. Isn't college supposed to be "higher education" with appeal to the smartest people in society? How worthless th ediploma is becoming.

Noah Carl said...

This post by Jon Haidt on Heterodox Academy may be of some interest. He argues that, due to affirmative action, "many students spend four years in a social environment where race conveys useful information about the academic capacity of their peers":


Audacious Epigone said...


Tend to agree, though it's not a panacea. It just moves the onus for censorship from service providers to hosts.




The mean IQ of college-aged students in the US, only ~60% of whom are n-H white--and that figure is dropping--is not 100. It's probably 95 or 96. So there is still a modest tendency for college grads to be more intelligent than non-grads, but nowhere near like it was a couple of generations ago.


Yes, I've seen that. Derb commented on it as well. Prophetic indeed.

dc.sunsets said...

AE, off-topic: Have you looked at the mental health responses split out by sexual orientation? I posit that significant numbers of gays (and possibly lesbians) got started down that path as impressionable, impulsive (and desperate for attention) teens, and that homosexuality (or high-n casual sex) is to social behavior what getting a spinal injury is to physical risk taking behavior...a massive impediment to future happiness, embedded by "listening" the the impulsive mind.

As such, I see gays as perpetually unhappy. The drive for legally-mandated social acceptance is gays' (and their straight friends who feel emotionally compelled to support them) misplaced effort to relieve their inescapable unhappiness which is (like the spinal injury metaphor) an irreversible consequence of something they embedded while they were young and stupid/impulsive.

Everyone has regrets, but in our times of "never is heard a discouraging word," no one wants to tell their friends, family members, acquaintances, etc., "Well, we're sorry you (damaged your spine or embedded deal-breaker memories in your mind) when you were younger, and now you're permanently screwed."

Regrets. What if so much social policy these days is simply to try, as silly as it sounds, to help people avoid confronting the deep, irreversible regrets that they'll carry for the rest of their lives?

You can't un-murder someone. Sadly, we're surrounded by people who murdered their own future happiness because they listened to earlier people, filled with regret, who tried to normalize their folly so they can blame someone else.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

I remember reading this article around 2014. http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2008/11/by_robert_weissberg_fellow_cob/

Audacious Epigone said...


I have, and you're correct.

The phrase I use regularly is "emotional safeguarding". Not only do they refuse to acknowledge things that caused regrets in the past, they refuse to address ongoing issues that will cause regrets in the future.

Don't emotionally safeguard someone if you care about him. It's like giving him a local anesthetic on a wound instead of cleaning the wound out so that it can heal up.


Ha, nice. Thanks.

Don't have enough data to do the same analysis on professors as on students, but as mentioned I suspect the trends are similar.

bob said...

bitches be crazy

chris said...

I️ would have ISP’s would be regulated like utilities meaning you can’t censor people’s free speech.

chris said...

*I would have thought