What actually determines one's position on the political

The left/right spectrum is an analogue to the IQ Bell curve. The top of the bell curve belongs to the smartest people a k a the centrists.

But...
All that is is my own theory.
It's probably not something extremists will understand.
That's how it is.

>>132767570
So the majority of the population are the smartist?

Do you understand what the fuck a bell-curve is?

>>132767262
a couple of things come into play, for instance if you are retarded you are probably politically aligned with things that advance the retard agenda.

however, some of my relatives from different backgrounds hold very different political views

>>132768115
I see. I have the same thing in my family to; different backgrounds, different positions on the spectrum. But the contrary also happens just as often, which led me to start thinking about this issue.

Our genetic pool is so diverse and complex that we may very well hold within ourselves genes that make us percieve a certain political/civic model as the most suited for us.

Look at other species that live in society. They genetic invariably, along with evolution, allows them to remain in a state of equilibrium for milions of years while humans are still fighting for inumerous issues and have a hard time living in unity, even when there were no technology or political springs around the world.

I believe that this genetic mess that we created is the cause for most of the conflicts in human history.

>>132769580
Too*

>>132767810

i think by 'top', he means the right side of the curve, not the tallest point of the wave.

>>132767262
It's all r/K, anon. It is biological, you are correct.

>>132767570

This is interesting to me. It makes sense. I personally am relatively high IQ, and notice that not only am I very driven toward a centrist perspective, but so are most of my other high IQ friends.

It's a fairly logical thought that the smartest people would have the easiest time taking more than one perspective on an issue, deconstructing any fallacies or biases in an argument before agreeing to it, and considering the bigger picture of how the system of cause and effect works on both sides of an issue.

But do you have anything to back this up? It's a lovely idea. Any proof beyond anecdotal evidence?