Religiosity And Intellgence Quotiants

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1304367093' post='2235910']Of course, I've also met religious people who were very intelligent, and irreligious people who were quite...not.[/quote]Haven't we all. But keep in mind that the study focuses on trends in the population, the observable and demonstrable trend is more income, social support, education, and intelligence means less religiosity.[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1304367196' post='2235913']Also, the first thing that occured to me as well was how small the variation is (less than 6 points between the highest and lowest mean?) and how worthless IQ is as a manner of measuring intelligence.[/quote]What else would you accept, comrade?

Edited May 2, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Amppax]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1304367150' post='2235912']
Hm... but when we're standardizing the z-score, we need the root of the sample size. [img]http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/zstat.gif[/img]
[/quote]


true, my bad [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif[/img].

Edited May 2, 2011 by Amppax

[Amppax]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1304367206' post='2235914']
What else would you accept, comrade?
[/quote]

meh, i suppose that i would have to go with intelligence

Edited May 2, 2011 by Amppax

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1304367206' post='2235914']
Haven't we all. But keep in mind that the study focuses on trends in the population, the observable and demonstrable trend is more income, social support, education, and intelligence means less religiosity.What else would you accept, comrade?
[/quote]
I'm not sure. I'm no psychologist nor sociologist so I don't really know what else is out there.

EDIT:
Actually I just reviewed my sources and they agree that IQ is a generally reliable metric for intelligence. Don't know where I got that it was unreliable from...

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304367462' post='2235917']I think that is just the point, we don't have a measure of intelligence that would allow this study to come up with any meaningful results.[/quote]So you just deny?[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1304367474' post='2235918']I'm not sure. I'm no psychologist nor sociologist so I don't really know what else is out there.

EDIT:
Actually I just reviewed my sources and they agree that IQ is a generally reliable metric for intelligence. Don't know where I got that it was unreliable from...
[/quote][quote][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_I.Q"]Studies comparing religious belief and I.Q[/url]
Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.”[b] The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.”[/b] This portion of the study uses the same data set as Lynn's work IQ and the Wealth of Nations.[/quote]Understanding that IQ testing doesn't cover all forms of intelligence is important. But even if we use another standard, such as the SAT we find the same.[quote][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_religious_belief_and_educational_attainment"][b]Studies comparing religious belief and educational attainment[/b][/url]
In 1975, Norman Poythress studied a sample of 234 US college undergraduates, grouping them into relatively homogeneous religious types based on the similarity of their religious beliefs, and compared their personality characteristics. He found that "Literally-oriented religious Believers did not differ significantly from Mythologically-oriented Believers on measures of intelligence, authoritarianism, or racial prejudice. Religious Believers as a group were found to be significantly less intelligent and more authoritarian than religious Skeptics." He used SAT's as a measure of intelligence for this study.[/quote]

Edited May 2, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Amppax]

It would be interesting. In my experience (which i will say right know is very limited) a lot of people i know are smart, and a good number of these are atheists. However, the smartest people i know are not. It would be interesting, if as a continuation of the study, we only tested people that tested very highly on IQ for belief. Again, totally based off my own limited personal experience, I may be totally off base.

[Luigi]

Did they have any Benedictines, Dominicans, or Jesuits in the sample group?

[AudreyGrace]

...Not to mention that IQ tests are very unreliable in determining a person's intelligence. They do not take into account varying mental strengths and weaknesses. For example, someone can be a phenomenal writer and yet not be able to do certain math. Intelligence cannot be measured in only one way. In my puny opinion, the most "intelligent" person in the world would be someone who has a great grasp on [u]all[/u] subjects within the world, which would include both science and religion. Not only would they understand such topics, but they would also be able to use their knowledge in a purposeful way.

The Webster's definition for intelligence is: "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations; the skilled use of reason; the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria."

I know a lot of people who can score sky high on an IQ test, but when it comes to real life circumstances and decision making, they're like this . My brother being one of them. Does he apply his knowledge to various situations and can he use his reason to his utmost advantage? Hardly. An IQ test might say he is intelligent, but in all reality, he is not.

All in all, whenever I see data based on IQ tests, I chuckle.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1304368641' post='2235929']All in all, whenever I see data based on IQ tests, I chuckle.[/quote]What about the SAT? Is there no measure of intelligence that is acceptable or palatable?

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1304368641' post='2235929']
...Not to mention that IQ tests are very unreliable in determining a person's intelligence. They do not take into account varying mental strengths and weaknesses. For example, someone can be a phenomenal writer and yet not be able to do certain math. Intelligence cannot be measured in only one way. In my puny opinion, the most "intelligent" person in the world would be someone who has a great grasp on [u]all[/u] subjects within the world, which would include both science and religion. Not only would they understand such topics, but they would also be able to use their knowledge in a purposeful way.

The Webster's definition for intelligence is: "the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations; the skilled use of reason; the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria."

I know a lot of people who can score sky high on an IQ test, but when it comes to real life circumstances and decision making, they're like this . My brother being one of them. Does he apply his knowledge to various situations and can he use his reason to his utmost advantage? Hardly. An IQ test might say he is intelligent, but in all reality, he is not.

All in all, whenever I see data based on IQ tests, I chuckle.
[/quote]

edited for this:
PS- my brother is not religious. Incidentally, the valedictorian of my graduating class (the guy is an academic genius) is very, very Christian. In my personal experience, the smarter kids tend to be religious. Maybe that's just a coincidence. Idk.

double edit: i just accidentally hit "reply" instead of "edit"
I would clearly not score high on an IQ test... but I'm normally pretty smart...

Edited May 2, 2011 by AudreyGrace

[Amppax]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1304368819' post='2235930']
What about the SAT? Is there no measure of intelligence that is acceptable or palatable?
[/quote]

That is the problem, there really are flaws to just about every current measure of intelligence. Yes, IQ is the best that we have. Is it perfect? No! and that is really where some of us are finding problems with it

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1304368819' post='2235930']
What about the SAT? Is there no measure of intelligence that is acceptable or palatable?
[/quote]

I don't think there is. The SAT and ACT are better though, because one focuses more on English and reading comp where the other focuses more on sciences and detailed facts. Students can choose which to take, and can take them more than once, so they know which is better suited for them.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1304369028' post='2235934']English and reading comp where the other focuses more on sciences and detailed facts.
[/quote]
A vast knowledge of facts is not intelligence.

Edited May 2, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1304367670' post='2235919']Understanding that IQ testing doesn't cover all forms of intelligence is important. But even if we use another standard, such as the SAT we find the same.[/quote][quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304368988' post='2235933']That is the problem, there really are flaws to just about every current measure of intelligence. Yes, IQ is the best that we have. Is it perfect? No! and that is really where some of us are finding problems with it[/quote]I suspect you might be minimizing these studies, that consistently show a trend, because it's not convenient.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1304369494' post='2235937']
I suspect you might be minimizing these studies, that consistently show a trend, because it's not convenient.
[/quote]

I'm done with this. I've already said, i would probably agree with the basic premise (the average person who doesn't believes in God is smarter then the average person who does). But i just think that

1) there are other confounding factors that make this fact almost worthless and two

2) that IQ isn't the end all be all of intelligence, even if it is generally useful

Thats it.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1304369136' post='2235935']
A vast knowledge of facts is not intelligence.
[/quote]

Right. The point I was trying to make is that at least a student can best express their own take on intelligence. Originally, I did say that even the SAT is not an efficient way to measure intelligence, as are no current standardized tests.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304371163' post='2235949']I'm done with this.[/quote]Okay.[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304371163' post='2235949']I've already said, i would probably agree with the basic premise (the average person who doesn't believes in God is smarter then the average person who does).[/quote]That wasn't the premise, but alright.[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304371163' post='2235949']1) there are other confounding factors that make this fact almost worthless and two[/quote]Calling it worthless, no denial there.[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304371163' post='2235949']2) that IQ isn't the end all be all of intelligence, even if it is generally useful[/quote]Again, no one claimed it was, not even remotely.[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304371163' post='2235949']Thats it.[/quote]Thank you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

a point or two isn't that significant, even if it's all true. so it does as the professor who did the story said... it establishes that those who are higher in intelligence are more skeptical, and those with lower often value certainty over all else, truth or not. this shows that the difference is not that significant.

an interesting question... i suppose i'd say my knee jerk response would be to say lower intelligence would be more prone to religious thought. and i think mr catholic cat agreed, and i'm sure many would. but, if the difference is so small... is it fair for us to think that our perception was ever accurate to begin with? not really, i'd have to think.
it'd seem we're being influence more by stereotypes, than what's true. cause there's surely many yokels and stupid atheists, etc too.

[Socrates]

While I had had the OP on ignore, as he is typically a troll, seeing as this thread has gone on for two pages, I thought I'd add my $.02. . . .


While I can't speak regarding the methodology, integrity, and accuracy of Nyborg and Lynn's study, I can say that many of the most intelligent, educated, and intellectual people I've known personally, as well as read, have been strongly believing, practicing orthodox Catholics, a number of them being of a "traditionalist" bent, and most of them politically and culturally conservative. (Of course, it does help to have been to an orthodox Catholic school.)
Many of them have high IQs, some at genius level, and some are converts from irreligion.

While I hate to tout my own braininess (as its really irrelevant to anything), lets just say I've scored high on IQ tests, as well as in my academic studies. I also attend the traditional Latin Mass at a very conservative FSSP parish, and most would classify my political, cultural, and religious beliefs as very conservative. And this is true for many much more intelligent than myself.

But my IQ or anybody else's is really completely irrelevant to any meaningful debate on religion, philosophy, or politics.

Touting studies allegedly proving higher average IQ scores for the irreligious and liberals is simply a slightly-more-sophisticated way of calling those who disagree with those views a buncha stoopid retards.
It is a lazy and sloppy method of avoiding actually having to even address the religious or political arguments themselves, and instead resorts to using statistical averages to dismiss those on the other side as dummies.

It's lazy, ad-hominem, and anything but intelligent.

And having a high IQ hardly proves one's views correct. There are plenty of people with high IQs and not a lick of basic common sense.


"Radtrads, fundamentalists, extremists, dogmatists" are rather ill-defined and derogatory labels, and labeling them all stupid is even less meaningful.
In my casual experience (for whatever it's worth), the irreligious and liberal tend to be intellectually-lazy idiots who prefer name-calling and smug condescension to rational thought, and tend to avoid serious intellectual inquiry at all, their minds being more occupied with such weighty matters as who they slept with/what porn they watched last night and what to get drunk/high/stoned on tonight.


Here's something somewhat related I came across lately, dealing with a study by Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute on the correlation of the factors of marriage, work ethic, and religion and economic class among American whites.
[url="http://blog.adw.org/2011/04/civilization-killers-on-the-decline-of-three-basic-cultural-indicators-and-what-it-means-for-america/"]Civilization Killers – On the Decline of Three Basic Cultural Indicators and What it Means for America By: Msgr. Charles Pope[/url]

Among Murray's findings:
"Although secularization has long been on the rise, it’s more pronounced in the working class. Among the upper middle class, 42 percent say they either don’t believe in God or don’t go to church. In the working class, it’s 61 percent. In other words, a majority of the upper middle class still has some religious commitment, while a majority of the working class does not."

While I know there's not a direct correlation between intelligence and economic class, these findings hardly paint a picture of the irreligious as a superior intellectual elite.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1304372622' post='2235967']
a point or two isn't that significant, even if it's all true. so it does as the professor who did the story said... it establishes that those who are higher in intelligence are more skeptical, and those with lower often value certainty over all else, truth or not. this shows that the difference is not that significant.

an interesting question... i suppose i'd say my knee jerk response would be to say lower intelligence would be more prone to religious thought. and i think mr catholic cat agreed, and i'm sure many would. but, if the difference is so small... is it fair for us to think that our perception was ever accurate to begin with? not really, i'd have to think.
it'd seem we're being influence more by stereotypes, than what's true. cause there's surely many yokels and stupid atheists, etc too.
[/quote]

and to clarify, what's im saying is that we shouldn't be able to perceive differences of a point or two. we could wonder if it might be the case, but that's it.