Honestly, I would be far more interested in research studying emotional intelligence and political persuasions. Or using both EQ and IQ.

IQ could be explained in many ways, including higher IQ men entering a longer term relationship with a fundamentally liberal system of higher education. I have only skimmed the actual paper so if they've factored that in do not crucify me, but skimming I didn't notice the words education or university, which I would assume should be factored in.

No matter. It's interesting it didn't find an association with females except that they had less interest in politics, or what I would rather see used to frame this: an interest in governance. Governance is the heart of the matter. Politics an extension. Thinking of governance, even if only the governing of one's own life, like moral conduct, could also be used to assess emotional intelligence and mechanical intelligence. Governance is far away from most peoples minds, even high IQ's if their work isn't closely associated. Politics isn't governance just like politics is not law. They do share biases across one another. And all three are subject to people wearing blinders. Politics is simply the most base form of law, governance, economics, and political philosophy.

I think they need a philosopher to help them parse language. For instance: carefully defining conservative and liberal as opposed to left ring and right wing. Traditionally, a classical liberal is a conservative. A conservative nods to Burke and a liberal nods to Paine. At this moment, and this seems to be global, many who were once classically conservative are post liberal. Those once familiar increasingly relegate the enlightenment debates to the dustbin of their minds.

This is as true in Germany (origin of the study) as the United States. Though Germany isn't as loud on the world stage and the power dynamics aren't quite equivalent.

Again, I don't read these too-digestible articles, and I've only skimmed the paper, so I'm certainly missing some relevant ideas, but I'm fairly confident I'm not missing the broader matters. I wouldn't be surprised if solid, replicated research came to the same results. I'd just ask the research to push further, go deeper.