Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills

[Thief]

From what I know of IQ tests at school, they compare you to the academic year norm. They aren't comparing you to the general population.

actually ...it was a nation wide survey

leave it to me to assume you caught the idea without my having to mention it

 

[Thief]

is something of a running joke among people in general, right?

and have you seen the lecture by Jordan Peterson?
iq and the workplace

 

[Thief]

btw.....an encyclopedia that I own makes notation of two kinds of genius.

they who think well and deeply
and they who perform well

you might reexamine my previous postings

and I still believe in God

 

[charlie sc]

The more religious they are the more the data is wrong.
C14 testing, say.

Exactly. These tests have even more explanatory power if someone states the intensity of their belief. Definitely something is going on here.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think I clearly posted explanation as I tested
and all you did was repeat it

I do guess.....now and then
but I like to THINK I do so.....intelligently

If I misunderstood your point, I am so very sorry. Sometimes I just skim-- which is a bad habit.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Cooky]

Atheists are better at reasoning(E.G. logic problem solving) than the religious. I'm sorry agnostics, you're just bellow atheists A proposed explanation, from this study, why atheists tend to have high IQ than theists is that religious people are more likely to use intuitive decision making. To confirm this theory, the study found working memory increased with religiosity(I.E. strength of belief) but decreased with reasoning/cognitive skills and deductive reasoning stayed the same all-round. Similarly, apostates(I.E. converts either way) showed similar results. This study suggested it's not an impairment but rather a bias, "religiosity effect reflects cognitive-behavioral biases that impair conflict detection, rather than general intelligence." The authors conclude from the results that religious people tend to forgo logical problem solving when an intuitive answer is present. Therefore, if the intuitive answer is it seems like god-did-it or it's a supernatural answer, then nothing else need be examined. Nonetheless, from these results, this cognitive bias seeps into more than just religious dogmatism and axioms. Religiosity generally makes people worse at reasoning. Interestingly, working memory increases with religiosity/dogmatism(not as much as the atheist though) and deductive reasoning is the same as others. Perhaps some people can explain why they think this is the case?

This particular study had 63 235 participants, in total, of all age groups, education and country of origins. These variables were also cross examined to see if there were conflicting co-variables - there were none. The online tests took about 30+- minutes to finish and gave the participants a plethora of test, such as:The Grammatical Reasoning Task, Colour Word Remapping (CWR), Interlocking Polygons task, Paired Associate Learning (PAL), Spatial Span and Self-Ordered Search, Spatial Rotations tasks and so on.

So, my question to you is, how certain are you god(s) exists?
1 = Absolute Certainty, 2 = Strong, 3 = Not Certain, 4 = Very Doubtful, 5 = Atheist

Of course, you may critique the study or anything else. If you are going to question the study, I recommend you put your thinking caps on and either read it(it's free) or give some constructive criticism. Just saying something is wrong, especially if the thing you're against has evidence, is an assertion. Assertions can be answered with assertions and are pointless beyond words. In other words, put because after you said something

After praying and meditating on your post, I have come to the conclusion that I don’t believe it because it feels wrong.

 

[charlie sc]

After praying and meditating on your post, I have come to the conclusion that I don’t believe it because it feels wrong.

I have no doubt.

 

[Cooky]

I have no doubt.

If you reed the Bible you can be smart like me.

 

[charlie sc]

If you reed the Bible you can be smart like me.

I'm sure.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If you reed the Bible you can be smart like me.

Well, yes-- yes you can. It was deep-diving, many hours of study, if the very same bible, that has made me the Atheist I am today!

I thank god for allowing the bible to exist in it's present form: it's an excellent tool for teaching people about the impossibility of a benevolent god even existing in the first place.

 

[Thief]

Well, yes-- yes you can. It was deep-diving, many hours of study, if the very same bible, that has made me the Atheist I am today!

I thank god for allowing the bible to exist in it's present form: it's an excellent tool for teaching people about the impossibility of a benevolent god even existing in the first place.

but.....maybe God can be insane
( wrote an op to this notion some years ago)

or maybe sanity is something we humans don't really get
(look at the evening news)

and the reconciliation is NOT what most bible thumpers think it will be

 

[Augustus]

You might be assuming this but I'm not. I place great value if not more value on emotional intelligence than IQ. I do know some psychologists are trying to measure emotional intelligence but I haven't checked on their progress.

It's not that IQ tests don't measure EQ, it's that they don't measure intelligence.

Ability to solve a series of isolated and completely artificial puzzles against the clock says nothing about your ability to solve real problems in the complex and interconnected environment of real life with all that this throws at you.

An economist who comes up with a great, super complex mathematical model that shows how packaging lots of bad debt actually makes that debt super safe would no doubt score very highly in an IQ test.

When the model doesn't work in real life and nearly collapses the world economy, I'm not going to be championing his intelligence even though he has a 'genius' level IQ.

One is not intelligent if they are wrong, but in a highly complex manner.

Sure, ecological validity is always a concern in psychology. This is specifically why I said that the onsite IQ tests are far better. They examine how you problem solve.

Solving 'problems' with no real world consequences, randomness, nth order effects, etc. still doesn't measure intelligence.

If you want, we can examine this particular study and what aspects of cognition atheists excel at compared to those who are religious?

I don't put much stock in such tests so it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

If there were a way to measure such things in a real-world environment then it might be interesting.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

but.....maybe God can be insane
( wrote an op to this notion some years ago)

or maybe sanity is something we humans don't really get
(look at the evening news)

and the reconciliation is NOT what most bible thumpers think it will be

could be.

But. Looking around the Universe? It seems that "god's" primary attribute, is to remain hidden from logical and sane discovery.

Only the illogical and/or insane appear to "communicate" directly. To be sure-- many quite sane folk do manage to believe in god(s)... but they never seem to claim direct communication, aka a text message or other tangible evidence.

These facts alone alone, says a great deal about these "gods" .. none of it positive.

 

[charlie sc]

It's not that IQ tests don't measure EQ, it's that they don't measure intelligence.

Ability to solve a series of isolated and completely artificial puzzles against the clock says nothing about your ability to solve real problems in the complex and interconnected environment of real life with all that this throws at you.

An economist who comes up with a great, super complex mathematical model that shows how packaging lots of bad debt actually makes that debt super safe would no doubt score very highly in an IQ test.

When the model doesn't work in real life and nearly collapses the world economy, I'm not going to be championing his intelligence even though he has a 'genius' level IQ.

One is not intelligent if they are wrong, but in a highly complex manner.



Solving 'problems' with no real world consequences, randomness, nth order effects, etc. still doesn't measure intelligence.



I don't put much stock in such tests so it doesn't really matter one way or the other.

If there were a way to measure such things in a real-world environment then it might be interesting.

It's a good observation. I'll have to do some research on this and get back to you.

 

[tas8831]

and have you seen the lecture by Jordan Peterson?
iq and the workplace

Jordan "I hate Marxism even though I only recently read part of 'das kapital' Jordan?

Why am I not the least bit surprised - he is the dumb guy's smart guy.

 

[Thief]

Jordan "I hate Marxism even though I only recently read part of 'das kapital' Jordan?

Why am I not the least bit surprised - he is the dumb guy's smart guy.

looks like op material

 

[Cooky]

Well, yes-- yes you can. It was deep-diving, many hours of study, if the very same bible, that has made me the Atheist I am today!

I thank god for allowing the bible to exist in it's present form: it's an excellent tool for teaching people about the impossibility of a benevolent god even existing in the first place.

But, but, but... *faints*

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Religious people outperform atheists at their accuracy of intuition.

So?

 

[Thief]

Religious people outperform atheists at their accuracy of intuition.

So?

let me guess …..intuitively...

when faced with a lack of info....a believer will proceed
with an intelligent guess in play

the nonbeliever will stand ground and wait for it

 

[tas8831]

Religious people outperform atheists at their accuracy of intuition.

So?

They do?