Are those of higher intelligence less likely to believe in intelligent

[Frame Dragger]

If the first half of your statement is true, then the second half is not scientific. I'm not looking for the truth, I'm looking for the correct scientific response.

Reformulate his statement thusly: "Claims of ID are not falsifiable, and therefore are not scientific." That would be correct, or at least close. Maybe, "What is not open to falsification or confirmation is invalid as a scientific theory," is a bit more exact. That doesn't make it false, but it means that what is being presented as a theory in line with the scientific method is not.

@Gokul43201: "Intelligent Degisn" (capital ID) is a specific family of theories put forth in American politics. It is a thinly veiled attempt to present Creationism as a scientific theory, and not a religious one. Specifically, it is meant to compete with and discredit through erosion, the notion of 'Science' and 'Theory' and spefically what some in the religious right call "Darwinism". This should be separated from a simple study of the evolution and the existing fossil record, which is considered standard science outside of Kansas.

 

[Gokul43201]

If the first half of your statement is true, then the second half is not scientific. I'm not looking for the truth, I'm looking for the correct scientific response.

I deleted my sentence when I realized it didn't come out exactly the way I wanted it to. But in any case, do you have a reference for the scientific position that you cited in your earlier post?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I deleted my sentence when I realized it didn't come out exactly the way I wanted it to. But in any case, do you have a reference for the scientific position that you cited in your earlier post?

I happen to be the source of that quote. If you repeat it, please attribute it to me.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here's the tabulations from the results of a survey about belief in a God vs. results of (1) a standard reasoning test, and (2) a standard vocabulary test:

Can you explain what I'm seeing? Not sure how to interpret these charts.

 

[Leptos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
Also:
http://ccannizzaro.com/images/iq_vs_religion_lg.bmp
http://lifeloveandcs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/iq_vs_religion.png

 

[jeffonfire]

Wow, great graphs!

 

[Proton Soup]

isn't IQ usually mapped to a normal distribution with 100 at the mean? if so, why aren't those graphs more dense with data points near the mean? (the first three, which are in fact all the same graph)

 

[zomgwtf]

isn't IQ usually mapped to a normal distribution with 100 at the mean? if so, why aren't those graphs more dense with data points near the mean? (the first three, which are in fact all the same graph)

It's because that's not a demographic graph of IQ, it's a graph of percentage of people with this IQ believing religion is very important.

So it would appear that people with IQs above about 95 have a tend to believe that religion is not important.

you have to read the titles

EDIT: to make it more clear the graph shows that around 11% of people with an IQ of 105 believe religion is very important. Thats for the first 3 graphs.

The next graph just shows scores on some 'religiousity' test (presumably to test how religious an area is) compared to the GDP per capita. So it appears more wealthy an area is the less religious they become.

 

[Proton Soup]

It's because that's not a demographic graph of IQ, it's a graph of percentage of people with this IQ believing religion is very important.

So it would appear that people with IQs above about 95 have a tend to believe that religion is not important.

you have to read the titles

the data seems fairly discontinuous for that to be true.

 

[zomgwtf]

Can you explain what I'm seeing? Not sure how to interpret these charts.

These charts show that the confidence in existence of God decreases as people make more correct answers to questions.
First question is How alike are dogs and lions.

Second question would have been a vocab test, the more amount of correct words a person got the less likely they were to assert gods existence.

It's comparing these answers on standardized test but people would have to have had to answer both questions on the same test, if a person decided not to answer one of the questions then their result would not be included at all.

 

[zomgwtf]

the data seems fairly discontinuous for that to be true.

Why?

 

[Proton Soup]

Why?

well, look at what happens if your IQ is just above 95. your religiosity isn't some average, it's a range of values from about 10 to 40%. that looks more like data on individuals. I'm not sure what to make of it unless it's supposed to be some sort of co-mixture of studies.

edit: actually, i see on the middle graph now that the title says by country.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I was far more impressed with the data provided by Gokul43201.

 

[lisab]

Any idea how IQ was tested?

I'm especially curious about the Mean IQ vs Religiosity by Country. The graph looks fishy. For one, most countries are below average. And there's a cluster of countries with a mean IQ under 75! Looks bogus to me.

 

[Proton Soup]

i am also wondering if NIST can calibrate a religiosity scale

 

[zomgwtf]

well, look at what happens if your IQ is just above 95. your religiosity isn't some average, it's a range of values from about 10 to 40%. that looks more like data on individuals. I'm not sure what to make of it unless it's supposed to be some sort of co-mixture of studies.

edit: actually, i see on the middle graph now that the title says by country.

Regardless of if it's by country or if it's by 'groups of people with this mean IQ' it still shows the same thing. The religiousity scale however I'm iffy about however in my experience I think that graph seems about right. Africans I know and have dated are MUCH more religous and fundamentalist believers than any other people I've ever met.

 

[Proton Soup]

Regardless of if it's by country or if it's by 'groups of people with this mean IQ' it still shows the same thing. The religiousity scale however I'm iffy about however in my experience I think that graph seems about right. Africans I know and have dated are MUCH more religous and fundamentalist believers than any other people I've ever met.

and you think it is a function of their intelligence?

it's not that i doubt there is an association, I'm just not sure what it all means. the US is generally considered a pretty religious country i think, and i also expect IQ here to be pretty close to the generally-accepted mean of 100. but what does "percent religiosity" mean to a researcher? what does 100% actually mean? does 10% mean you simply go to church on christmas and easter?

 

[Redbelly98]

It's because that's not a demographic graph of IQ, it's a graph of percentage of people with this IQ believing religion is very important.

There is a problem with this interpretation of the graph ...

So it would appear that people with IQs above about 95 have a tend to believe that religion is not important.

you have to read the titles

EDIT: to make it more clear the graph shows that around 11% of people with an IQ of 105 believe religion is very important. Thats for the first 3 graphs.

Okay, then what % of people with an IQ of 96 believe religion is important?

 

[zomgwtf]

There is a problem with this interpretation of the graph ...Okay, then what % of people with an IQ of 96 believe religion is important?

People in the mean IQ of 96 would have around 24% of them believing religion is very important... How can you not see that

EDIT: wait I see there are plenty more IQs of 96. There should be a key then.

I was wrong, I accept defeat on the analysis of those graphs! It still doesn't change the fact that as the mean IQ rises the tendency is belif that religion is very important goes down.

 

[jeffonfire]

Chill man, don't bash him.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not sure of the point in posting all three of these, since they are all the same data set.

http://ccannizzaro.com/images/iq_vs_religion_lg.bmp
http://lifeloveandcs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/iq_vs_religion.png

 

[zomgwtf]

lol, so you repost them in a quote dave! Awesome
They arent' the same though, they have different colours an different fonts. As well some of the data points are different.

EDIT: One point is different on one graph!

 

[DaveC426913]

lol, so you repost them in a quote dave!

Yeah, I normally never do that. But this time I felt it was necessary to make my point.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a problem with this interpretation of the graph ...


Okay, then what % of people with an IQ of 96 believe religion is important?

This is not a question that can be answered from the plot, as I suspect you were hoping to demonstrate.

Here's the origin of that now pretty well-circulated plot: it was essentially put together by bloggers at Gene Expressions, using country-by-country data from a Pew Survey on religiosity and similar data from Lynn & Vanhanen (2002) on IQs. The data is legitimate - any inferences of causality are likely treading on shaky ground.

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001523.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

 

[Redbelly98]

This is not a question that can be answered from the plot, as I suspect you were hoping to demonstrate.

Yes, exactly.

 

[zomgwtf]

This is not a question that can be answered from the plot, as I suspect you were hoping to demonstrate.

Yes I was mislead by the graphs and he was correcting me.

 

[MotoH]

So correct me if I am wrong.
These graphs show, the smarter you are, the less likely you are to believe in a God?

 

[zomgwtf]

So correct me if I am wrong.
These graphs show, the smarter you are, the less likely you are to believe in a God?

Not really, they show that countries with a higher mean IQ have a tendency to not place so much importance on religion. This means nothing about belief in God, ID, supernatural etc. it also doesn't show a relation between higher individual intelligence and belief in these things. The higher IQ and lower tendency to place importance on religion could just be coincidence based on how the countries have developed...

 

[MotoH]

So it basically has the same meaning as how important chocolate is to Neapolitan ice cream and how smart you are?

 

[DaveC426913]

So it basically has the same meaning as how important chocolate is to Neapolitan ice cream and how smart you are?

There is a correlation between IQ and lack of importance of God. But correlation does not imply causation. There may be a third factor that is the cause for both.

Contrarily, there is probably no correlative factor between chocolate ice cream and IQ.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is a correlation between IQ and lack of importance of God. But correlation does not imply causation. There may be a third factor that is the cause for both.

It has been posited by Lynn & Vanhanen that it may be the per capita GDP of the countries driving the IQs and had further been suggested in a few blogs I've read that the GDP may drive religiosity as well.

 

[arunma]

There is a problem with this interpretation of the graph ...


Okay, then what % of people with an IQ of 96 believe religion is important?

The problem here, I think, is that the information you want has been integrated out when calculating each data point. I don't know how their binning is (I assume this is a histogram), but in every IQ bin, they're only giving us the mean value of the IQ. As time consuming as it would be, I would be interested in seeing a distribution function of IQs for each religiosity % bin. My guess is that for the higher points, the distribution would be not-so-sharply peaked in the low IQ, and have a very large tail extending into higher IQs.

I would also be interested to know what's up with their binning. There's no data between 40% and ~55% religiosity. Are there just no moderately religious people in this data set? And as far as interpretation goes, the fact that the mean IQ of the less religious people is only 110 suggests that there are a lot of stupid, irreligious people out there. Sure, there's a definite trend to the data. But there are also enough outliers that you can't make the conclusions that the graph would suggest.

I don't think you need misleading graphs like this to argue that religion can make people do stupid things. That much is patently obvious by looking at creationists, anti-vaccine people, certain religious Republicans, Fox News anchors/viewers, etc. But the issue is a lot more complicated than "only stupid people are religious," and I think this needs to be recognized.

 

[Proton Soup]

It has been posited by Lynn & Vanhanen that it may be the per capita GDP of the countries driving the IQs and had further been suggested in a few blogs I've read that the GDP may drive religiosity as well.

i suspect it is likely that when people don't know where their next meal is coming from, that there would be more prayer. and when you never go hungry, you don't give it much thought.

 

[MotoH]

It could also be, because there is less technology and less information flowing around, they don't have much else to do besides be very religious. Something like a time occupier for poorer countries.

 

[jeffonfire]

If you barley had enough money to buy food and had aids you to would want something to believe in after death too.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think you need misleading graphs like this to argue that religion can make people do stupid things. That much is patently obvious by looking at creationists, anti-vaccine people, certain religious Republicans, Fox News anchors/viewers, etc.

Religion doesn't make people do stupid things. Stupid people do stupid things.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Religion doesn't make people do stupid things. Stupid people do stupid things.

...And then find convenient post hoc explanations: books, witches, religion, videogames, sex, not enough sex, etc... etc...

When are we just going to say, "wow, you're stupid, you're a sociopath, and you're... just a bit of a ****-up." It's not hard to make the distinctions.

 

[DaveC426913]

...And then find convenient post hoc explanations

Perfect. That's what I was trying to say.

 

[celebrei]

I sometimes question the validity of psychometrics, Richard Feynman had a measured IQ of only 125 and he was one of the greatest physicist of the 20th century...

 

[Frame Dragger]

I sometimes question the validity of psychometrics, Richard Feynman had a measured IQ of only 125 and he was one of the greatest physicist of the 20th century...

The IQ test... doesn't exist. There are several standard tests which yield a commonly accepted IQ. The thing is, if you have an ENORMOUS strength in one area, it has a limited ability (think between 1 and 10) to give you credit. Likewise, if for some reason, you struggle with paired-word association, or some element of visual geometry, or have a learning disability (Dyslexia, ADHD, etc...) will skew the score.

So, let's say you're a Feynman, and therefore a 20 out of 10 for math. You still get "10". One or two elements of the test he didn't care for or focus on, or had issues with would throw it off. Still, 125 is a very respectable IQ.

To be honest, IQ tests are best used in the context of a wider battery of neurological testing when someone is disabled. Determining their living conditions, the need or lack of education, etc is very important.

If you're a genius, you don't need the Windsor IQ score to tell people. However, some people do well on some of the various tests, and it's a reason to form clubs (such a s MENSA) where it is considered important. IQ tests are very crude, but in VAST quantities can show trends in predominantly white westerners.

The first question with Psychometrics should always be: Why are we doing this? What is the possible use of knowing your IQ, whatever that happens to be defined as at a given period of time? Do we really believe that a single axis such as Intelligene can meaningfully predict whatever the hell you define "religiosity" to be?

An IQ test is like a specific spatial configuration or operator... it's incredibly useful within a set of rigid rules, but outside of that it's no longer relevant.

EDIT: Then again, Einstein had an IQ of 163 which is absolutely off the charts (not literally)... so obviously it was accurate for him. 125 with a spark of genius that can't be quantified isn't hard to imagine either. Just to be the devil's advocate yah know.

 

[JerryClower]

Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin were both theists. They are two of the best scientists that ever lived.

 

[celebrei]

Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin were both theists. They are two of the best scientists that ever lived.

Ummm... Isaac Newton was indeed a theist (an unorthodox Christian though) while Charles Darwin was a theist who became agnostic after the passing of his favorite daughter, none the less Darwin did not hold people with religious beliefs in contempt (like Dawkins does)

 

[Frame Dragger]

Ummm... Isaac Newton was indeed a theist (an unorthodox Christian though) while Charles Darwin was a theist who became agnostic after the passing of his favorite daughter, none the less Darwin did not hold people with religious beliefs in contempt (like Dawkins does)

Dawkins is a fine example of how Atheism is the other side of the Theism coin (he's also about a tenth as bright as he believes himself to be, and twice as annoying and fallacious). They are both a kind of pure faith in something that is not falsifiable. They are both, to be blunt, blind faith which provides a sense of certainty. A colleague in the neurosciences is convinced that faith is mostly hardwired into humans, but that with intelligence comes the ability for that faith to 'glom' onto things it wouldn't otherwise.

We need to run after a Mammoth without constantly questioning the nature of reality, or whether the ground will suddenly give way. Some people achieve this through Theism, assured that the world is purposeful or at least overseen in some sense. Others do so through Atheism, in which case they put a LOT of faith in science that (this forum excepted) most people don't grasp more than articles of faith and religion.

Religion of course, is something which is invented to capitalize on faith... just like lousy books are for Dawkins!

 

[arunma]

Religion doesn't make people do stupid things. Stupid people do stupid things.

Point well taken. What I hope to convey here is that the usage of religion as an excuse for stupidity doesn't imply that religion is the cause of stupidity. As a counterexample, I would mention that physics can also be used for idiotic purposes, e.g. "What the Bleep do we Know?"

The IQ test... doesn't exist. There are several standard tests which yield a commonly accepted IQ. The thing is, if you have an ENORMOUS strength in one area, it has a limited ability (think between 1 and 10) to give you credit. Likewise, if for some reason, you struggle with paired-word association, or some element of visual geometry, or have a learning disability (Dyslexia, ADHD, etc...) will skew the score.

I imagine I'd have a pretty low IQ myself. I'm fairly retarded when it comes to most things besides physics.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Point well taken. What I hope to convey here is that the usage of religion as an excuse for stupidity doesn't imply that religion is the cause of stupidity. As a counterexample, I would mention that physics can also be used for idiotic purposes, e.g. "What the Bleep do we Know?"



I imagine I'd have a pretty low IQ myself. I'm fairly retarded when it comes to most things besides physics.

Well, I wouldn't say 'retarded', which is really a term referring to an ensemble of developmental disorders/delays.

You may have real learning disabilities, or then again, maybe you're just really good at physics. People are different after all, with qualities that are difficult to measure in standardized test. Certainly people who are adept with mathematics and physics already stand as a statistical minority compared to a majority incapable of a similar feat. It shouldn't surprise us perhaps, that some strengths and focuses come with a price.

I can imitate an accent in any language I hear perfectly every time, and I learn them well in immersion settings. All that, yet I cannot learn from paired-word association (i.e. "Hola means yes. Yes is Hola." etc...). *shrug*... Why do some people have artistic sensibilities and some are CLEARLY tone deaf (literally and figuratively)?

The line between "retarded" or Autistism-spectrum, ADHD, etc... etc... shouldn't be a manifestation of similar qualities, but CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE. The medical profession has moved away from that understanding in the search for profits and a genuine desire to classify and cure all perceived abnormalities and ills. If a budding psychologist, psychiatrist, or M.D. should learn one thing that leads them to do no harm, it would be to distinguish between what is clinically significant illness/sequelae, and what is just the crenulations of human nature.

 

[Loren Booda]

The term "retarded" is now referred to as "intellectually disabled." A respectful mouthful.

 

[Frame Dragger]

The term "retarded" is now referred to as "intellectually disabled." A respectful mouthful.

Indeed... and Psychopaths, became Sociopaths, and now with the SAME (or nearly identical) DSM/international diagnostic criteria, they 'suffer from Antisocial Personality Disorder'. These are still the same people of course.

Of course, when someone with no empathy or impulse control is doing something nasty to you and yours, the fine distinction of the semantics probably is a cold comfort. Shying away from the word retarded simply means we're moving further away from the truth. They're not 'disabled' as though they'd been hit by a truck or falling carbonaceous condrite (haven't we all been there. lol. lol. *dead silence*), they were born (or developed) with that contra-stacked deck.

I know you're not advocating 'PC speech' in this context, but I wish we as a society would work to clear common misconceptions about mental illness, retardation, autism (classical, not the full 'spectrum') which do real harm. The annoying and sad point for me is that especially in the community of people with Down's Syndrome, Fragile X, etc... plenty are living long productive lives now and frankly need protection from poor healthcare (a la fight clubs in texas and general neglect everywhere), and not impolite speech. The people I've encountered who resent the term "retarded" are:

1.) Relatives and friends of people who are developmentally retarded (full term) and...
2.) People with learning disabilities, low-average intelligence, who are NOT developmentally retarded, but have been insulted as such.

Of course, it's a better rhetorical position to say, "Roger is offended because he IS intellectually challenged, NOT retarded!" than, "People hurt MY feelings because that word has been used as an insult." Of course, any word can be perverted to become an insult, and amusingly the other way around. For instance, "Who Dat" now so famous for The Saints, was often a gag bit in Minstril Shows. Yeah, not the prettiest past for a cheer. People prefer to focus on the musical history with 'band callng' instead of people in black-face seeing a ghost, saying, "Who dat?! Who dey?!" and then acting like a frightened child. I'm not making that up... sad but true. >:(

Instead of appreciating the venom behind the slur 'Retard' which is what we all know the insult is (not 'that person is retarded', right?), and decoupling it from a harmless medical term... we get Political Correctness.

 

[ideasrule]

Indeed... and Psychopaths, became Sociopaths, and now with the SAME (or nearly identical) DSM/international diagnostic criteria, they 'suffer from Antisocial Personality Disorder'. These are still the same people of course.

Of course, "antisocial personality disorder" will soon become a common insult to heap on someone and politicians will have to invent a new term. So stupid.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Of course, "antisocial personality disorder" will soon become a common insult to heap on someone and politicians will have to invent a new term. So stupid.

Of course! After all, most high-level politicians display a remarkable number of traits associated with Sociopathic 'leanings' (lol) or outright Sociopathy itself. People wonder, "how did x politician think he would get away with y scandal?" Answer: Lack of forsight, lack of impulse control even when it's to their own detriment, lack of empathy and meaningful connection GOVERNER SANDORD *cough* *cough* Dick Cheney *cough* The guy who had $100k in his freezer...

Alas.

In fact, there was a study I have since lost the link to (but I keep searching for), which I read years ago out of Norway. They'd calculated a very rough estimate that upwards of 70% of career poloticians could meet (in this case EU standards) for Sociopathy. I don't care what the 'n' of that little statistical process was... if it's 10% that would be 5-10x the human norm (for men, less for women).

I woudn't read too much into a single study, but it's clear that people have a large range of (don't laugh people, you're better than this! lol) 'Arousal Thresholds' (AT) which does not have anything to do with sex (usually). Firefighters who live for the 5 alarm fire, base-jumpers, special operatives with various militaries... etc... ALSO seem to have a lot of those traits such as a very high AT. Makes sense really; what would terrify or paralyze many doesn't FEEL as intense to them, and in fact is the time when they feel most alive.

That last should be distinguished from symtoms of traumatic events that can have similar sequelae.

 

[arunma]

You may have real learning disabilities, or then again, maybe you're just really good at physics. People are different after all, with qualities that are difficult to measure in standardized test. Certainly people who are adept with mathematics and physics already stand as a statistical minority compared to a majority incapable of a similar feat. It shouldn't surprise us perhaps, that some strengths and focuses come with a price.

I've seriously considered the learning disability thing in the past. Is there a learning disability that causes someone to not be very good with arithmetic, but still be good at all other forms of math? On the other hand, it may just be that I'm an otherwise average American who's good at physics. Whatever the case, I figure that if I've made it through four years of college, two years of grad school, and one PhD qualifier without any serious trouble, it's probably nothing to worry about. But I figure that I would probably score fairly low on an IQ test. The existence of people like myself doesn't mean the data presented earlier isn't perfectly valid. But it does mean that we should make ourselves aware of what this funny quantity we call IQ really means.