# Are liberals really more "evolved" than conservatives? Scientific study suggests answer is yes. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2011, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383 "2011-02-23T21:18:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/81 "2011-02-25T05:27:06Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Will the day come when we recognize conservatism as a personality disorder that should be treated? :eek: As someone who deals with conservatism as a psychological dysfunction, I have to call that study’s claim moronic without even having to click on that spam link and read what it says. If you’re sincerely curious about social attitudes, it suffices to say that you, your family, my family, all our friends’ families, our national or ethnic group of people, our societies or even our civilization, we are not any different in the last several thousand years. All the atrocities people have committed in recorded history can be repeated again at any time, because there is no perceptible or quantifiable level of biological evolution in that very short time scale to justify any change in social behavior of human beings. So, you may ask, what explains the diametrically opposed attitudes of conservatives that want to exploit and abuse others for profit, and the rest of the enlightened humans that don’t? It all falls back to individual choice to be moral or not, and the sliver of development we made as intelligence species in the past 1,000 years to develop secular philosophies to provide a guide for our behavior, rather than the eternal superstition, fear and hate that all religions and conservatism are based on. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/82 "2011-02-25T05:38:28Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Not when he pretends to use it in a scientific context. He also brutalizes the concept of primitive brain. He takes a bunch of scientific terminology and just makes it whatever he wants. Like when intelligent design advocates take their everyday usage of the word theory to mean the equivalent of a theory in science. THE OPS WORDS: > [@](#): > > Are liberals really more “evolved” than conservatives? Scientific study suggests answer is yes. > I think this study speaks for itself. I’m sorry to say, it doesn’t look to flattering for conservatives. Cognitive neuroscience seems to be showing us that conservatives are less empathetic, less rational, less likely to correct errors in their thinking, more likely to gather around like minded people and shut out conflicting opinions, and more prone to fear than liberals. Will the day come when we recognize conservatism as a personality disorder that should be treated? Where’s all the “scientific terminology” he’s jsut making whatever he wants? I don’t see it, nor do I see him making a claim that liberals are genuinely “evolving” as a separate kind of human being splitting off from conservative human beings, like _sapiens_ split from _erectus_, and that is what he would have had to mean in order to be “pretending” to use it in a scientific context. Instead, he used it in its casual meaning of “better-more enlightened- more advanced” and because he was talking about it in relation to genuine physical differences, he put quotes around it to indicate: “I mean the usual meaning, but since it’s in relation to this scientific study about the brain, and could maybe be misunderstood to be an assertion about genuine evolution, I’m putitng quotes around it to make sure you understand I’m not actually suggesting that liberals are evolving into a separate species.” That you need this explained to you is amazing to me. And makes me think maybe you don’t, you’re just annoyed at the whole thing so you are nitpicking at his use of the word. ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/83 "2011-02-25T05:44:44Z")
What’s with the inability to edit typos? I meant to say: "… development we made as intelligent species… " ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/84 "2011-02-25T06:02:08Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > THE OPS WORDS: > > Where’s all the “scientific terminology” he’s jsut making whatever he wants? I don’t see it, nor do I see him making a claim that liberals are genuinely “evolving” as a separate kind of human being splitting off from conservative human beings, like _sapiens_ split from _erectus_, and that is what he would have had to mean in order to be “pretending” to use it in a scientific context. > > Instead, he used it in its casual meaning of “better-more enlightened- more advanced” and because he was talking about it in relation to genuine physical differences, he put quotes around it to indicate: “I mean the usual meaning, but since it’s in relation to this scientific study about the brain, and could maybe be misunderstood to be an assertion about genuine evolution, I’m putitng quotes around it to make sure you understand I’m not actually suggesting that liberals are evolving into a separate species.” > > That you need this explained to you is amazing to me. And makes me think maybe you don’t, you’re just annoyed at the whole thing so you are nitpicking at his use of the word. Take a look at where he said “emphasis mine”. Look, this whole thread is a pseudoscientist’s wet dream. If you are going to take a bunch of arbitrary values, scientifically, and then state that your side is superior because of the arbitrary terms you selectively taken from the data, then it’s just pseudo-pop-mumbo-jumbo-woo-woo horseshit. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/85 "2011-02-25T06:19:16Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Take a look at where he said “emphasis mine”. Look, this whole thread is a pseudoscientist’s wet dream. If you are going to take a bunch of arbitrary values, scientifically, and then state that your side is superior because of the arbitrary terms you selectively taken from the data, then it’s just pseudo-pop-mumbo-jumbo-woo-woo horseshit. Oh. Ok. Right. Got it. That’s crystal and compelling. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/86 "2011-02-25T15:34:43Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Oh. Ok. Right. Got it. That’s crystal and compelling. He used or added emphasis to scientific terminology to describe his biases. It’s pseudoscience. It’s pop science. It’s science-fiction. It’s science perverted for political use. First sentence on Wikipedia tells you what pseudoscience is and its not off the mark. To help you distinguish the two: The OP: Used words like evolution, emphasized a misuse of jargon like primitive brain, medical diagnoses like personality disorder, emphasized a misuse of the term gray matter, and did not even unbiasedly report all the results poorly reported in the article. He was not using the terms in everyday language. He was attempting to couch his biases in scientific language. Pseudoscience. Science: the only science, and I say that loosely, that you might find in the article is that conservatives and liberals are different on a number of traits. It’s just association or correlation. Anyway I’m glad I now understand you are able to distinguish specialists’ from laymans’ use of shared words but have absolutely no understanding of the difference between science and pseudoscience. I thought woo-woo would be enough given what you were writing earlier. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/87 "2011-02-25T16:12:08Z")
> [@Naxos](#): > > What’s with the inability to edit typos? > > I meant to say: "… development we made as intelligent species… " There’s only a five minute window to correct & edit your own posts. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/88 "2011-02-25T16:49:30Z")
The notion that complex cognitive expressions like political views have some biological explaination or predeliction in gross anatomy that we can easily view is a recurring one … and so far it has always proven to be, without exception for who makes it or for what purpose, pseudo-science. The notion that someone would tend to favour one set of economic or social theories over another because of the gross organization of their brain ought to be laughably absurd - it is seriously reminicent of phrenology: > **[Phrenology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology)** > > Phrenology (from Ancient Greek φρήν (phrēn) 'mind', and λόγος (logos) 'knowledge') is a pseudoscience that involves the measurement of bumps on the skull to predict mental traits. It is based on the concept that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions or modules. It was said that the brain was composed of different muscles, so those that were used more often were bigger, resulting in the different skull shapes. This led to the Phrenolo... ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/89 "2011-02-25T17:06:00Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Anyway I’m glad I now understand you are able to distinguish specialists’ from laymans’ use of shared words but have absolutely no understanding of the difference between science and pseudoscience. I thought woo-woo would be enough given what you were writing earlier. Making some impressive leaps for a guy who has made it clear he cannot distinguish between someone’s own words and the bolding they add to a quotation. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/90 "2011-02-25T17:30:16Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Making some impressive leaps for a guy who has made it clear he cannot distinguish between someone’s own words and the bolding they add to a quotation. Since you have already conceded that you are wrong by avoiding the subject, I will now argue your new point because it is actually more interesting than the quack science OP. The OP _ **EMPHASIZED** _ specific phrases and listed a subset of the results from the article. In effect, they are as much his opinion as anything else he said. The last two sentences are highlighting something known in scientific circles as ‘the obvious’, which shares the same definition in all other circles. I look forward to your next nitpick or goalpost shift. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/91 "2011-02-25T17:40:21Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > You’re not there yet, but getting closer. > > “Women” is fairly easy to define, if one defines “women” as “XX women.” Men are also easy to define, if one defines them as “XY men.” Which for all intents and purposes make up the vast majority of the population. > > But the defintion of conservative and liberal are so hard to pin down, that without some specific guidelines and qualifiers any study like this immediately fails the second test of science, which is “know what you’re testing” (the first test being “know what it is you’re looking for”). I’m not going to repeat what I said earlier. The study would be much better off if it at least tried to look for patterns which broke down by religion, education level, socioeconomic status, ethnic heritage, etc. For example, I would be more interested in a study which said “white males between the age of 20 to 40 years who go to church at least once a week and who are registered Republican voters were found to have brains 10% smaller than the population.” This sort of multi-variable analysis isn’t that hard to do in this age of computers if you have the survey data. Yet women and men is also a very broad, very diverse set of groups. Yes, they are easily definable by what is between their legs (or genetic makeup if you prefer) but beyond that you have problems ascribing psychological traits to either group. Men are, statistically, more violent than women. That said there are downright peaceful men and downright violent women. Men have a predilection towards violence more than women do but you cannot say with certainty whether a given man or woman would resort to violence only knowing their gender. We can come up with a binary set of groups for this as well. People who voted for Obama and people who voted for McCain. Or people who register to vote in republican primaries versus people who register to vote in democratic primaries. Yes, within those groups you will have a lot of variation of beliefs and motivations. What we do know however is that conservatives are seemingly more likely to be motivated by fear and less likely to have truth sway them. Certainly liberals will be guilty of that to an extent as well. However, there is nothing like the extent of pandering to fear and untruths on the left that there is on the right. This goes back to the Southern Strategy and it is done because it works. So, it is not unreasonable to ask what it is about that group (conservatives) that allows for such misinformation to work. Is it how their brain is wired? Is it how they were taught? Some combination of the two? This is no different, in essences, than asking why males are more prone to violence. I suspect it is a combination of the two. Some people are wired in such a way that they are predisposed to react in certain ways and not others. Upbringing/education can reinforce or mitigate various predilections. Just as men may be more disposed to violence they can learn to not resort to violence and control themselves. Males are partly wired for violence and partly taught it. I do not think that humans are evolving into two species…the conservative species and the liberal species. I think it is apparent though that there are real differences between the two groups and it is worth exploring why one person will accept a literal untruth (provably so in no uncertain terms), gleefully ignore the correct answer and _believe_ the untruth instead. In short, why is one group more prone to willful ignorance? ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/92 "2011-02-25T18:12:18Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The notion that complex cognitive expressions like political views have some biological explaination or predeliction in gross anatomy that we can easily view is a recurring one … and so far it has always proven to be, without exception for who makes it or for what purpose, pseudo-science. > > The notion that someone would tend to favour one set of economic or social theories over another because of the gross organization of their brain ought to be laughably absurd - it is seriously reminicent of phrenology: > > [Phrenology - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology) Anyone who goes to a phrenologist wants his head examined. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/93 "2011-02-25T18:24:32Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Certainly liberals will be guilty of that to an extent as well. However, there is nothing like the extent of pandering to fear and untruths on the left that there is on the right. This goes back to the Southern Strategy and it is done because it works. > > So, it is not unreasonable to ask what it is about that group (conservatives) that allows for such misinformation to work. Is it how their brain is wired? Is it how they were taught? Some combination of the two? This is no different, in essences, than asking why males are more prone to violence. > > I suspect it is a combination of the two. Some people are wired in such a way that they are predisposed to react in certain ways and not others. Upbringing/education can reinforce or mitigate various predilections. Just as men may be more disposed to violence they can learn to not resort to violence and control themselves. Males are partly wired for violence and partly taught it. > > I do not think that humans are evolving into two species…the conservative species and the liberal species. I think it is apparent though that there are real differences between the two groups and it is worth exploring why one person will accept a literal untruth (provably so in no uncertain terms), gleefully ignore the correct answer and _believe_ the untruth instead. > > In short, why is one group more prone to willful ignorance? What connection do you see between religious belief and this subject? Do you think that because conservatives are more likely to be strongly religious (according to Gallup, at least) that they are therefore more likely to, say, believe in a “young Earth?” Or is it because something about them is physiologically different in them that they believe strongly in both? The “conservatives” I know in real life are similar to me: they believe in Science, they do not believe in “young Earth” or “intelligent design”, they do not believe there were WMDs in Iraq, they do not believe that Obama is a Kenyan citizen, they do not believe there would be “death panels”, etc. But also, I note that pretty much all them are areligious, only going to church for weddings and funerals. So what’s the cause and what’s the effect? I think there are ways to try to determine this; the study in question here does not seem to satisfy that, from what parts of it I’ve been able to read. I’ve sent a letter off to the lead researcher asking him some questions, so perhaps I’ll get an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/94 "2011-02-25T18:36:58Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > What connection do you see between religious belief and this subject? Do you think that because conservatives are more likely to be strongly religious (according to Gallup, at least) that they are therefore more likely to, say, believe in a “young Earth?” Or is it because something about them is physiologically different in them that they believe strongly in both? Perhaps there is an answer to this but looks like and chicken and egg question to me. Are those who are conservative prone to religion? Are those who are religious prone to conservatism? Does it matter? From my perspective believing in religion (wholesale at least) requires believing in a lot of things that are provably untrue or, at the least, simply unprovable. That someone who can believe in death panels can also believe in a Young Earth does not seem so surprising. Yes, they are two wholly different and unrelated things but they both require the person to believe something despite all evidence to the contrary. So again, you get to why a certain group of people are willing to believe things that are simply, provably, not true. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/95 "2011-02-25T18:39:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Perhaps there is an answer to this but looks like and chicken and egg question to me. > > Are those who are conservative prone to religion? > > Are those who are religious prone to conservatism? > > Does it matter? > > From my perspective believing in religion (wholesale at least) requires believing in a lot of things that are provably untrue or, at the least, simply unprovable. > > That someone who can believe in death panels can also believe in a Young Earth does not seem so surprising. Yes, they are two wholly different and unrelated things but they both require the person to believe something despite all evidence to the contrary. > > So again, you get to why a certain group of people are willing to believe things that are simply, provably, not true. Which doesn’t in the least explain why there are so many people who are religious and liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/96 "2011-02-25T18:43:13Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Which doesn’t in the least explain why there are so many people who are religious and liberal. Did you read **Una Persson’s** post? _“…conservatives are more likely to be strongly religious (according to Gallup, at least)…”_ Yes, there are liberals who are religious. As has been noted these things tend to fall apart on an individual basis. Just as men are more prone to violence than women tells you nothing about what a given individual will do. Women can and certainly do resort to violence as well. Overall though it is without doubt there are a lot more men in jail for committing violent crimes than women. So too, overall, conservatives tend to be more religious than liberals (if Gallup is to be believed). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/97 "2011-02-25T18:46:38Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I think there are ways to try to determine this; the study in question here does not seem to satisfy that, from what parts of it I’ve been able to read. I’ve sent a letter off to the lead researcher asking him some questions, so perhaps I’ll get an answer. BTW: Thanks for this. I am interested in what more you can learn if you get an answer. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/98 "2011-02-25T18:49:30Z")
The definition of “strongly” religious is ambiguous. Liberals may be less likely to be dogmatic about religion, or they may be less likely to belong to traditional religions, or they may be less likely to strictly practice religion, but that doesn’t tell us anything about how many liberals believe in something that’s unprovable. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/99 "2011-02-25T18:53:03Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > that doesn’t tell us anything about how many liberals believe in something that’s unprovable. You must be using a different dictionary than I am if that is your definition of a “religion”. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383/100 "2011-02-25T18:55:33Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > You must be using a different dictionary than I am if that is your definition of a “religion”. It doesn’t matter what the definition of religion is. I was responding to Vinyl Turnip’s statement here: > [@](#): > > From my perspective believing in religion (wholesale at least) requires believing in a lot of things that are provably untrue or, at the least, simply unprovable. If a liberal believes in god or any other kind of woo-y non-provable stuff, it’s all part of believing in non-provable stuff. Hardcore religion isn’t the only thing that qualifies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-liberals-really-more-evolved-than-conservatives-scientific-study-suggests-answer-is-yes/572383.md?page=6)