This study is weird.

First the definitions of liberal and socialism are suspect. "Equivalence of outcome"? What socialist believes that everyone should be the exact same? Thats the opposite of socialism that's what dumb conservatives say it is, but thats not what it is.

Liberalism is the belief in acceptance and human rights come from private property. I know thats not how a lot of liberals consider themselves, more and more liberals are witnessing the eradication of human rights so that the capitalist class can own everything, and want to keep the human rights without the oppression and hate that comes with capitalist exploitation. But essentially the ideal liberal society is like a super-social democracy, and looking at a lot of European social democracies, the citizens dont really know or care how they get it.

Centrism is considered the most nuanced view. This is ridiculous. Being apolitical is not nuance, it is ignorance. I get a lot of people dont want to engage with politics all the time, I get it. I engage with politics all the time and I dont really want to either. Another personal preference would be that I dont want to use calendars. But not using calendars doesn't give me a more nuanced concept of time management. I have to engage with it if I wanna get things done. If anything, people who have a deep practical knowledge of politics have a more nuanced views, even conservatives. As a leftist I have read history books written by some conservatives, and while I usually disagree with their conclusions, they can provide great and unique insights into what actually happened, from which I can make my own conclusions. On the other end, I find leftists who are politically active are extremely concerned with facts and nuance, and actively resist steering a narrative toward this or that predetermined conclusion.

Deeper understanding of actual conditions leads to better ability to affect change. Spinning every event or phenomena into polemical basis to support my own position may be a sign of intelligence itself since rhetoric is like its own skill, even talent. But regardless, this is sectarianism and sectarianism is not a viable political strategy for engaging with the masses. Most leftists will argue with you of you call them sectarian, even if they plainly are. So almost no one is going to cop to being radical for the sake of being radical, most radicals consider them selves kind of left-moderates with people to their right and left. Ironically, the people who do consider themselves radical are usually closer to a moderate position, either favoring radical-liberal blanquism and adventurism, or state bureaucracy over radical liberation.

Also IQ is racist, better ask somebody

No wonder scientists can't crack the connection between intelligence and politics, if this is the standard research. In my experience, politics has more to do with emotion, empathy, and principles than intelligence. Intelligent people can be totally out for themselves, or committed to helping others, and usually some kind of blend since structural systems in society are concrete; and influence, resist or enable individual effort.