"The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations"

[Jeremiahcp]

The problem I always have with research about "religiosity" in any context is the way in which that characteristic is metricized. When it is metricized, researchers nearly always frame it based on Western religious paradigms, particularly Christianity. This is not a bad thing per se, but it is unfortunate that this bias isn't made more transparent. Why not call it "Christian religiosity" which is a more accurate term for what is measured?

With respect to this particular study, I've never felt there is good cause to believe that what we call "intelligence" is accurately encapsulated by IQ tests. Per the study:

"This definition of intelligence is often referred to as analytic intelligence or the g factor—the first factor that emerges in factor analyses of IQ subtests (e.g., Carroll, 1993; Spearman, 1904). Other newly identified types of intelligence, such as creative intelligence (Sternberg, 1999, 2006) or emotional intelligence (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999), are out of the scope of the present work because the available studies on the relation between intelligence and religiosity examined only analytic intelligence."​

I think this is an unfortunate shortcoming of the analysis, considering that religions do not limit themselves to being intellectual pursuits. That, coupled with the presumptuous way of measuring religiosity means these findings have some limitations. When I think about how the results would apply to paths like mine, I'm not sure where to start or if it does. Ultimately, that isn't too important. If we get past the limitations of the study and the prejudiced directions some people take with it, the discussion section actually has some pretty darned interesting speculations in it. The bit about functional equivalence I found to be particularly interesting, because I often think about religions from a functionalist standpoint myself.

"We describe hereafter four functions that religion may provide: compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and attachment. We propose that higher intelligence also provides these four benefits and, therefore, lowers one’s need to be religious."​

Study is very long, and I don't have time to read all of it in detail right now, but thanks for sharing it.

Thank you for actually reading the OP.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

There is actually a lot to criticize in the article, and it also has some good points. I was debating about posting it on the forums because I was not sure if people would just start making general statements about religion and intelligence or if they would actually look at the study and make direct criticisms of the content.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Not fair.

.

Well then it is good thing you posted that other link then. It must be because I am accessing it through the college internet.

 

[Polymath257]

source

Interesting that the top of the religiosity arc is at an IQ of about 72. An IQ Rating of 70-79 indicates borderline deficiency


.​

Why so few data points for IQ over 100? This makes the graph very suspect.

 

[Polymath257]

Well then it is good thing you posted that other link then. It must be because I am accessing it through the college internet.

That is likely. Most colleges have contracts that allow access to these sites from within the college network.

I am working at home today, so didn't go through the university network.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I pointed out your flawed reasoning in your link.

You pointed out what you think are flaws because you misunderstood what I was saying.

... but I guess it's more fun to go off half-cocked with a misunderstanding than to ask a few questions to find out what I meant in the parts you have trouble with, eh?

Just because you understand math, that does not mean you understand statistics.

I understand statistics just fine, thanks. The issue seems to be with your reading comprehension.

 

[sayak83]

I thought this study would make an interesting conversation piece. It is long, but I think worth reading, so if you see something in the study you disagree with, quote it and share why, or feel free to do the same on something you agree with. It may be hard but please keep the discussion about the study itself.

This is the article itself: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Here is the source site: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

I am skeptical about both intelligence measurement metrics and meta-analysis. The intelligence measurement has had a checkered history to say the least.

I am quite sure that San Hunter gatherers are significantly more intelligent than me even if she can't solve math puzzles. So at most it says people who are better at deliberative analytical sequential reasoning have less religiosity. This I accept. They would be more philosophical than religious, but that was known from Thales onwards I guess.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You pointed out what you think are flaws because you misunderstood what I was saying.

... but I guess it's more fun to go off half-cocked with a misunderstanding than to ask a few questions to find out what I meant in the parts you have trouble with, eh?


I understand statistics just fine, thanks. The issue seems to be with your reading comprehension.

If you understood statistics, you would not conclude that your understanding of statistics is "just fine."

But this line of the conversation is being addressed in your other thread, where it belongs.

 

[pearl]

Religion is not an intellectual journey; it's more about thinking with the heart than the mind itself.

I think it is both, neither is exclusive. The mind and heart have to be reconciled toward the same direction.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I am skeptical about both intelligence measurement metrics and meta-analysis. The intelligence measurement has had a checkered history to say the least.

I am quite sure that San Hunter gatherers are significantly more intelligent than me even if she can't solve math puzzles. So at most it says people who are better at deliberative analytical sequential reasoning have less religiosity. This I accept. They would be more philosophical than religious, but that was known from Thales onwards I guess.

I am also extremely skeptical of the article as well, I was just interested in seeing other's criticism of it. I am mainly interested if people will make general assumptions about it, or if they will actually look at the article.

One of the things I find concerning is the R value given in the abstract, of −.20 to −.25. Out of a range of -1 to 0 that seems like awfully weak evidence of a correlation.

 

[sayak83]

I am also extremely skeptical of the article as well, I was just interested in seeing other's criticism of it. I am mainly interested if people will make general assumptions about it, or if they will actually look at the article.

One of the things I find concerning is the R value given in the abstract, of −.20 to −.25. Out of a range of -1 to 0 that seems like awfully weak evidence of a correlation.

I am not a statistician. But I do know a lot of controversy over such meta-analysis brewing in psychological literature. I will look at it in time in detail. But intelligence metric and meta-analysis sends lots of red flags going.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I am not a statistician. But I do know a lot of controversy over such meta-analysis brewing in psychological literature. I will look at it in time in detail. But intelligence metric and meta-analysis sends lots of red flags going.

Significance of R values can vary from field to field, so I am not sure what is significant in social psychology meta-analysis, but a -.2 is seems really low. And I think certainly a point to criticize the article on.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You dun know whats rily dum now? Thinkin peeple cum from monkees. Now thats dum.

 

[Polymath257]

I am also extremely skeptical of the article as well, I was just interested in seeing other's criticism of it. I am mainly interested if people will make general assumptions about it, or if they will actually look at the article.

One of the things I find concerning is the R value given in the abstract, of −.20 to −.25. Out of a range of -1 to 0 that seems like awfully weak evidence of a correlation.

Yep. That's saying something equivalent to two directions being roughly within 75 degrees of each other. Yes, it's a slight correlation, but very slight.

 

[suncowiam]

OMG, I rather be religious than read that study.

 

[Milton Platt]

I thought this study would make an interesting conversation piece. It is long, but I think worth reading, so if you see something in the study you disagree with, quote it and share why, or feel free to do the same on something you agree with. It may be hard but please keep the discussion about the study itself.

This is the article itself: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Here is the source site: SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

As has been said many times, fo not confuse correlation with causation. This is a complex question as to why people are prone to magical thinking.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

" First, intelligent people are less likely to conform.."

I didn't read the whole thing, but this seems to be saying that skeptics of evolution, atheism, etc especially in dogmatic academic environments tend to be smarter.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

As has been said many times, fo not confuse correlation with causation. This is a complex question as to why people are prone to magical thinking.

The topic of the article is correlation. They entertain some discussion as to why, but the actual meta-analysis was to assets correlation. It is possible to study correlation without making official inferences about causation.

 

[Polymath257]

The topic of the article is correlation. They entertain some discussion as to why, but the actual meta-analysis was to assets correlation. It is possible to study correlation without making official inferences about causation.

The article did, however, address a number of mechanisms for the correlation, thereby looking into the issue of causation.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The article did, however, address a number of mechanisms for the correlation, thereby looking into the issue of causation.

As long as they are not saying this study is evidence of causation, I am fine with that.