religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence

[charlie sc]

Quite a few posts. I'll try reply to them as best I can

Read my profile below.
It seems that with the decline of religion people are getting smarter.
Yet we don't seem to be able to hold our lives together like people
of previous, lower IQ generations could.

I don't understand your profile numbers.

 

[charlie sc]

Well, i have to say, i dont trust the articles point. I think its too simplistic.

In my view, theres very smart religious folk (like me ) and very stupid religious folk (unlike me). And theres very smart atheists and theres also very stupid atheists.

Thats my view.

Yep, I agree.
Just to throw a spanner in the machine, for fun, there's something called the dunning kruger effect, which basically means we're not good at assessing ourselves.

 

[charlie sc]

Did Kanazawa research levels of common sense as well as intelligence quotient?

Huh? No? Hmmmmm...... No common sense, then.

I'm not sure how you can measure common sense lol.

 

[Audie]

Not believing in Noah's ark, only shows how limited in your understanding and knowledge really goes.

Further more your the one whos turning my question around and make it about Noah's ark.

When Noah's ark has nothing to do with the Thread or the questions at hand.

Two thirds of your post is about me, and you
are not making it about me? Tsk

The thread involves whether religious folks
have the sense they were born with.

The "ark" test kinda sorts out to whom that
applies.

Most religious folk are pretty normal.

 

[Audie]

I'm not sure how you can measure common sense lol.

He has not come back to answer my q about metrics.
Why? Maybe The Phantom knows.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

A couple of years ago a group of researchers picked a selection of papers published in peer-reviewed journals of psychology and tried to replicate the experiments. They failed in half the cases. When I'm told that psychologists have "proved" this that or the other, I yawn and move on.

Also a quick look showed that the surveys seemed to be of USians. For comparison, I know of two sociological surveys (another pseudoscience) of the correlation of social class and religion: the US one showed the lower classes more religious, the British one showed the opposite!

In this case, one has to consider not only the validity and measurement of IQ but the religion that people are likely to be exposed to. For example, surveys have shown that USian scientists are far less likely to be religious than Indian ones. One might conclude that surveys in the US, if they show anything at all, are about Christianity, not "religion".

 

[sealchan]

The general scientific consensus(1) shows religiosity and the strength of religious belief is associated with less IQ. The procedure and and materials needed for these studies seem fairly simple to perform. Gather a bunch of people, have them do an IQ test, or similar, and then ask how religious they are or the intensity of their belief. Consistently, participants that score higher on the religious scale will rank lower in IQ. However, it's not just limited to IQ; more recent research demonstrates less analytic cognition and less scientific and mathematical knowledge. So, as an example for this topic, Kanazawa(2) performed a study with 15,197 Americans. He found, on a 1-4 scale(1 = not religious, 4 = very religious) that IQ decreased, on average 6 points, per scale.

This question is for theists, but atheists may respond.
Why do you think religiosity and/or strength of religious belief negatively correlates with IQ?


References

(1) http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-cont...a-Analysis-and-Some-Proposed-Explanations.pdf

(2) http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/spq2010.pdf

Ba ram ewe...to our fleece, our clan, be true!

 

[charlie sc]

One issue with studies like this is that people aren't always motivated to try their hardest. When people were offered minor incentives to do the test results were significantly improved. With increased motivation, lower IQ individuals increased by around 15 IQ points on average, and it is unlikely that people became fully motivated simply by being offered $10 or so.

Given the significance of the impact of motivation on outcomes, I'm not sure how results can be considered reliable unless there is a way to account for motivation.

Role of test motivation in intelligence testing

... we examined whether motivation is less than maximal on intelligence tests administered in the context of low-stakes research situations. Specifically, we completed a meta- analysis of random-assignment experiments testing the effects of material incentives on intelligence-test performance on a collective 2,008 participants. Incentives increased IQ scores by an average of 0.64 SD, with larger effects for individuals with lower baseline IQ scores [0.98SD]... Collectively, our findings suggest that, under low-stakes research conditions, some individuals try harder than others, and, in this context [can significantly affect research findings]

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/108/19/7716.full.pdf

So the one you gave on, "Role of test motivation in intelligence testing," is interesting. I'll take a look later. What this really says is that there is some leeway for IQ scores and incentive can increase or decrease IQ scores. What it does, however, is not change the argument. These studies test participants under the same conditions, especially when it's done in person. So, one could easily say the non-religious are capable of increased IQ scores as well. Therefore, there is still a difference between them.
Another argument you could imply is that non-religious people are more motivated to test themselves or learn and test themselves, which is by far a harder argument to make, but it still creates a difference between the two. Why then would only atheists and those less religious have that extra motivation?

Also, IQ doesn't test for intelligence, it tests for a limited range of things that may have some impact on intelligence and does so in an unnatural context freed from broader implications of a 'bigger picture'.

If you explained credit default swaps that contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 I'm sure you would find a correlation that showed high IQ people being more likely to believe that cleverly packaging lots of bad debt actually made for an ultra safe investment. As Orwell noted "there are some ideas that are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them".

Other tests have shown that people with better analytical reasoning abilities (part of IQ) are less likely to change their opinions when presented with contradictory evidence. For example:

The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief

In this vein, one study examined the relationship between math skills and political problem- solving [58]. In the control condition, people who were strong at math were able to effectively solve an analytical problem. However, when political content was added to the same analytical problem – comparing crime data in cities that banned handguns against cities that did not – math skills no longer predicted how well people solved the problem. Instead, liberals were good at solving the problem when it proved that gun control reduced crime, and conservatives were good at solving the problem when it proved the opposite. In short, people with high numeracy skills were unable to reason analytically when the correct answer collided with their political beliefs. This is consistent with research showing that people who score high on various indicators of information processing, such as political sophistication ([59]; although see [48]), science literacy [60], numeracy abilities [58], and cognitive reflection [61], are the most likely to express beliefs congruent with those of their party...

This argument slightly veers of course. At any rate, we can discuss it. While interesting, the problem with this study is that it does not differentiate between religious vs non-religious, for the argument you're making. Similarly, another problem is on the intelligence vs religiosity scale, it shows that someone can be religious but not high on the religiosity scale, which means they're likely more intelligent, hence why differentiation is important. Just to add to the mix,the link I've posted a few times now found that non-religious were far more liberal than not and the article you posted shows liberalism in good light. Speculating between correlation can be problematic, but i'm willing to concede, "political sophistication ([59]; although see [48]), science literacy [60], numeracy abilities [58], and cognitive reflection [61], are the most likely to express beliefs congruent with those of their party."

Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics

Public opinion toward some science and technology issues is polarized along religious and political lines. We investigate whether people with more education and greater science knowledge tend to express beliefs that are more (or less) polarized. Using data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, we find that more knowledgeable individuals are more likely to express beliefs consistent with their religious or political identities for issues that have become polarized along those lines (e.g., stem cell research, human evolution), but not for issues that are controversial on other grounds (e.g., genetically modified foods). These patterns suggest that scientific knowledge may facilitate defending positions motivated by nonscientific concerns.


IQ tests are a bit like testing someone's 100m sprinting ability and using it as a substitute for how good they'd be at football.

So I had a look at the article but I'm not sure the point you're making. Perhaps if you could explain a bit and point out what your extrapolating from it. Btw, in this post or for IQ in general, I would not say that a person is better off with more IQ. I'm not equating the two.

 

[charlie sc]

A couple of years ago a group of researchers picked a selection of papers published in peer-reviewed journals of psychology and tried to replicate the experiments. They failed in half the cases. When I'm told that psychologists have "proved" this that or the other, I yawn and move on.

In order for any science to be taken seriously, it needs to be replicated. These IQ studies were replicated many times and continue to do so. I'm curious though, you can cite these particular studies? You may continue to yawn, but you haven't given any proper critique to anything.

Also a quick look showed that the surveys seemed to be of USians. For comparison, I know of two sociological surveys (another pseudoscience) of the correlation of social class and religion: the US one showed the lower classes more religious, the British one showed the opposite!

What you said doesn't have anything to do with the topic, but I'm curious, care to cite it?

In this case, one has to consider not only the validity and measurement of IQ but the religion that people are likely to be exposed to. For example, surveys have shown that USian scientists are far less likely to be religious than Indian ones. One might conclude that surveys in the US, if they show anything at all, are about Christianity, not "religion".

You make no sense here. Apart from that, you have posited continual assertion but fail to give any evidence.

 

[charlie sc]

"Problem" isn't really the word I would use. The meaning and applicability of all research is limited by its methodology is all. For example, if studies use a coarse or imprecise framework for what "religious" means (or that framework is strongly biased towards a particular type of religion) that's not as useful as if various factors were parsed out and examined more independently. That is what I'm interested in, personally, because anything can be considered religion/religious.

In the meta-analyses they say how they chose the studies. Here is an extraction from it -

"The religiosity measures included belief scales that
assessed various themes related to religiosity (e.g., belief in
God and/or the importance of church). In addition, we
included studies that measured frequency of religious behaviors
(e.g., church attendance, prayer), participation in religious
organizations, and membership in denominations."

If you examine Kanazawa's study, he gives 3 questions regarding religiosity. They seemed straight forward to me and reflected the quote. Now, you may say, "anything can be considered religion/religious," but obviously, these 3 question meant the difference in IQ scores. So, even if you want to deny they were measuring religiosity, it's clear that just 3 question correlates with negative IQ. I think that is something of note.

Presenting something in the positive versus presenting it in the negative makes a big difference. Having been around RF for a while, usually when someone brings up this argument they're not doing it in an objective fashion like you are. I don't feel like you posted this to be a jerk about it, but I've seen that angle often enough that it leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. It gets thrown about by anti-religious folk to rationalize their whole "we want to destroy all religion and enlighten the masses" mentality. And honestly? I don't see where this line of inquiry goes other than such directions. If you are seeing positive value to such a line of inquiry - aside from knowledge for knowledge's sake - please do share.

I appreciate you saying I'm being objective about this - I do try I've seen many people use correlational information unwisely. Sometimes terms in science become derogatory even if they weren't meant to be. For instance, the term retard did not have any derogatory connotation in its inception. Similarly, the word subject is not used anymore in psychology because its slightly derogatory towards people. Participant is now the term. I had some difficulty in my other topic but not this much friction. What I noticed, in that OP, is that people gave more reasons why, whatever the reason is, rather than deny the evidence outright. In this OP, most people seem to deny the evidence outright instead of offer possible explanations(good, bad or neutral). If someone cared about the validity and reliability, that much, they would examine the literature, but instead of offering an explanation and moving on people just deny it. This unintended phenomenon seems to demonstrate that religious people tend to use intuition more. Apart from that, I'd like to think that any truthful correlation has some value. For instance, I found it interesting that religiosity positively correlates with longevity and other healthy benefits. This seems to be the negative side of it, but I'm sorry if people do not find it interesting. Perhaps, one could just see it as fact, as far as the data is concerned(not the theories) and then not let it hurt you in the future. Honestly, who really cares about this ? and it doesn't prove anything

Perhaps, in hindsight, it wasn't a good idea if atheists are necessarily aggressive towards theists and use this information as a bludgeon tool,

 

[charlie sc]

If you are seeing positive value to such a line of inquiry - aside from knowledge for knowledge's sake - please do share.

I was thinking of posting some more positive science stuff and some negative science stuff about religion or even atheism, if I can find it. However, seeing the negative responses to this thread, it may not be a good idea, especially the ones that seem to hurt people's feelings.
Do you think posts that discuss the positive and negative aspects of religion is valuable or should it be left alone?

 

[whirlingmerc]

I am pretty sure that if a person believes in noahs ark,
it is a sign that they may not be real bright.

my my my

well I have 25 patents and 4 engineering degrees and do believe Noah's flood happened

not real bright? well such a determination is subjective I suppose

 

[Subduction Zone]

my my my

well I have 25 patents and 4 engineering degrees and do believe Noah's flood happened

And yet some very basic science gives you problems. This is probably cognitive dissonance more than anything else. When a person has a strongly held belief that is clearly false one's subconscious will offer up all sorts of excuses for one's false beliefs. I do not think that you are a liar, but as Jack Nicholson said:

EDIT: That sounded meaner than I wanted. What disciplines are your degrees in? Perhaps if the problem was approached from a science that you are more familiar with we could resolve this problem.

 

[PruePhillip]

Quite a few posts. I'll try reply to them as best I can
don't understand your profile numbers.

These numbers are from a Gallup Poll. They show what
might be a terminal decline in American morals.

 

[PruePhillip]

my my my

well I have 25 patents and 4 engineering degrees and do believe Noah's flood happened

I suspect that the flood of Noah's day was local.
The bible uses the term "earth" or "world" in various ways.
The whole world in Sumerian times was the dome of the
sky, where it reached the horizon - that was the earth.
In Roman times the earth was the empire itself, even though
people knew of other empires.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I suspect that the flood of Noah's day was local.
The bible uses the term "earth" or "world" in various ways.
The whole world in Sumerian times was the dome of the
sky, where it reached the horizon - that was the earth.
In Roman times the earth was the empire itself, even though
people knew of other empires.

The phrase 'the waters covered all the high mountains under all the heavens' does not sound local to me

and I think you don't need a boat for a local flood, you can go on a long hike

but then again... just a lowly engineer here

 

[whirlingmerc]

And yet some very basic science gives you problems. This is probably cognitive dissonance more than anything else. When a person has a strongly held belief that is clearly false one's subconscious will offer up all sorts of excuses for one's false beliefs. I do not think that you are a liar, but as Jack Nicholson said:

EDIT: That sounded meaner than I wanted. What disciplines are your degrees in? Perhaps if the problem was approached from a science that you are more familiar with we could resolve this problem.

my my my

actually... truth be told.... 'basic atheism gives me problems'
but I do respect their consciences

 

[Subduction Zone]

my my my

actually... truth be told.... 'basic atheism gives me problems'
but I do respect their consciences

Why "my my my"?

And why no areas of specialization? I thought as a Christian that you would want to know whether one can read the Bible literally or not.

EDIT: By the way, the fact that there was no Noah's Ark has nothing to do with atheism. They people who first figured that out were Christians.

 

[charlie sc]

my my my

actually... truth be told.... 'basic atheism gives me problems'
but I do respect their consciences

What don't you understand about atheism?

 

[Audie]

my my my

well I have 25 patents and 4 engineering degrees and do believe Noah's flood happened

I did qualify it by saying "may not". Nothing personal
was said aspersing you.

I am no good at math. I got through calc and trig,
as well as elementary prob and stat, but it was
awful. Really hard for me. I am not smart enough
to be an engineer. I am envious of those who
think in math, revel in it.

I did get a double bachelors in bio and geology,
before going to grad school. Biologists geologists
and paleontologidts have kind of always been
around since I was a child.

Long drives in the country, with a running commentary-
geologists can read the land like a book,
like a stockman can read the herds in pastures.

You know some such people- maybe they read
the bridges, the architecture.

There was a pipeline engineer who like you was
a fundamentalist. I did not know him well,
40 yrs or so older than me. Nice man, though!

I dont know what you do, but if you like to talk
about your work, maybe you could point and
tell, about dams, refineries..? You'd have a rapt
audience if you have the knack. I like things
that are real, full of details, and to listen to
an expert talk of what he knows.

When I went to Wyoming to stay on a ranch
at a college classmate's invitation, I was so
interested in everything! Her Dad is not talkative,
but he liked me and took me all around, showing
me things and explaining. It was such a cool
experience!

What sort of engineering do you do?