> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.schweizermonat.ch/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Intelligence Has No Ideology - URL: https://www.schweizermonat.ch/intelligence-has-no-ideology/ - Published: 2026-06-05T07:31:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-18T07:39:32.000Z - Description: Political activists and the media often assume that those who share their own political outlook are smarter. A long-term study of giftedness offers some surprising evidence to the contrary. - Author: Maximilian Krolo 0:00 /417.84 1× Die Deutsche Version finden Sie [hier](https://www.schweizermonat.ch/intelligenz-hat-keine-ideologie/). I believe in intelligence. Not in the naïve sense that intelligent people are always right, but in the empirical sense: intelligence is measurable, stable, and consequential—for people’s life trajectories, for societies, and for the way people deal with complexity. Decades of research show that it is the single strongest predictor of the most commonly used measures of success—more consequential than personality, social background, or diligence alone. That makes one question particularly interesting, and it has occupied me for years: Do intelligent people think differently? And to what extent is that related to their political orientation? The question touches on a narrative that permeates public discourse but is rarely stated openly: the idea that political beliefs allow us to draw conclusions about cognitive ability. The answer offered by a study we recently published in the journal *Intelligence* is sobering—at least for those hoping for a simple story. > “Intelligence is measurable, stable, and consequential—for people’s life trajectories, for societies, and for the way people deal with complexity. Decades of research show that it is the single strongest predictor of the most commonly used measures of success—more consequential than personality, social background, or diligence alone.” ## The Myth of the Left-Liberal Genius In academic circles, the belief persists stubbornly that anyone who is truly intelligent will sooner or later arrive at progressive views. Conservatism is portrayed there as a failure of cognition—as a form of fear, rigidity, or an inability to reflect. With the rise of right-wing populist movements, this interpretation has hardened. Agreement with right-wing positions is treated as evidence of shallow reflection or simply an inability to cope with the complexity of modern societies. Within this framework, the political opponent is depicted not merely as mistaken, but as cognitively overwhelmed. Whoever chooses the “simple answers” must, the subtext suggests, have run up against the limits of his own intellect. This logic may be flattering to some, but it does not withstand empirical scrutiny. A glance at the history of liberal thought is enough to refute it. Friedrich August von Hayek represents a sophisticated liberal-conservative tradition. His skepticism toward constructivist schemes of social design has lost none of its analytical sharpness. The distinction matters: Hayek’s defense of freedom and organically evolved institutions stems precisely from his skepticism toward any centralized claim to knowledge. This sharply distinguishes him from a reactive conservatism that seeks merely to preserve the status quo for its own sake. One need not share Hayek’s conclusions. But anyone who claims that conservative or libertarian convictions are incompatible with giftedness ignores not only the history of ideas but also the latest empirical research. ## A Study Spanning Almost Four Decades The Marburg Giftedness Study, initiated by Detlef H. Rost, is the most comprehensive longitudinal study of giftedness in the German-speaking world. Participants were followed over decades, allowing us for the first time to systematically examine their political beliefs. The original sample consisted of more than 7,000 unselected third-graders in what was then West Germany in the late 1980s. Standardized intelligence tests identified a group of gifted children (IQ ≥ 130) and a carefully matched control group of average intelligence (IQ ≈ 100). Both groups were reassessed six years later, in ninth grade. Decades later, we measured their political convictions in adulthood—both on a simple left-right scale and using a more differentiated instrument covering four dimensions: *economic libertarianism, socialism, social liberalism,* and *social conservatism*. This four-dimensional approach is methodologically crucial: measuring political convictions on a single axis produces noise rather than insight. > “Giftedness does not produce a political ideology. Brilliant minds can be found among libertarians and social democrats, conservatives and liberals—in almost exactly the same proportions as in the population at large.” The numbers speak clearly. On the left-right self-placement scale, there are no differences. Gifted and average-intelligence individuals place themselves in the political center to essentially the same extent. Nor are there statistically significant differences across the four dimensions. The study therefore disappoints those who equate intelligence with progressive convictions. The fact is simple: giftedness does not produce a political ideology. Brilliant minds can be found among libertarians and social democrats, conservatives and liberals—in almost exactly the same proportions as in the population at large. ## The Major Exception: Men and Conservatism There is, however, one exception. On the conservatism dimension, an interaction effect emerges: men of average intelligence score significantly higher than highly gifted men. Among men of average intelligence, preferences for social stability and tradition are more pronounced. No such difference is observed among women. In our publication, we discuss this finding in light of various hypotheses, including cognitive complexity, openness, and the cultural transmission of political values. The purpose is to do justice to the complexity of the interaction. Does the higher average level of conservatism among men of average intelligence imply that conservative beliefs are cognitively inferior? Not at all. The finding describes group means, not the characteristics of individual politicians. Winston Churchill was not merely a strategist of historic stature; as a Nobel laureate in literature, he was also an intellectual heavyweight. Friedrich Merz ranks among the most prominent corporate and business lawyers of his generation. Giorgia Meloni displays in debate an argumentative precision that contradicts her placement in the supposedly less-educated camp. And Javier Milei worked as a professor of economics for more than two decades and published extensively on monetary policy. To infer individual characteristics from group averages is a basic statistical error. Yet media and public discourse routinely make precisely these mistakes. First: correlation is not causation. Second: the measurement relies on self-reporting, which may be subject to social desirability biases in academically dominated environments. Third: drawing conclusions about individuals from a single group difference that is statistically significant but substantively limited is not science; it is stereotyping. ## Undermining Dogmatism Hayek warned against overreaching fantasies of central planning and placed his trust in the wisdom embedded in evolved institutions. Influenced by him, I believe in competition, the rule of law, personal responsibility, and the superiority of free institutions. For a society in which giftedness automatically led to a particular political conviction would be intellectually poorer, not richer. Giftedness and intelligence do not prevent conservatism, nor do they promote socialism. Quite the opposite. They make ideological rigidity more difficult and thereby undermine dogmatism. And that is a good thing, because a free society needs this cognitive capacity on every side of the political spectrum. The public discourse would benefit if all sides stopped treating intelligence as a membership card—or, by construction, denying it to the opposing side. The data do not support either move. Anyone who nevertheless makes such claims is drawing political conclusions where only statistical ones are warranted. With all due respect, that would not be a particularly intelligent thing to do.