Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills

[charlie sc]

Soft science studies put forward only to annoy people. 60,000 picked values are not the same as a random sample.

Don't deny what the report admits "Several limitations should be considered. Most notably, both of our cohorts were self-selecting populations of internet users which could have introduced sampling biases."

I need to explain a misconception you have here. The participants were not chosen and were as random as you could get when participants are recruited for a study. No one in this study was selected What they mean by possibility of sampling biases is that it's fairly logical to assume that most of the participants use some sort of social media platform, therefore, some participants who don't use the internet will be left out. This by no way, at all, means you can't generalise but it needs to be kept in mind. Most studies are done with students and that is a sampling bias. These studies go into the thousands and are far, far more generalisable than studies done years ago. Phew, ok I hope that's out of the way.

Soft science studies put forward only to annoy people.

I'm sorry it annoys you.

Why isn't sex a consideration? The word 'Sex' doesn't even appear in the report.

They didn't feel they needed and logically explained it here - "We have previously demonstrated that gender does not have a significant effect on cognitive performance in Owen et al., 2010; Hampshire et al., 2012a)."

Why does Sociology get a special version of Science that doesn't require confirmation of results?

What? Explain what you're trying to say here pl0x.

...tons of peer reviewed non-repeatable studies. That's sociology, and it relies heavily upon p-values and most importantly random sampling.

Ummm, do you think sociology is psychology? Also, do you think these studies can't be repeated?

To get meaningful p-values you need random sampling. Do you know what a p-value is? I'll give you a chance to explain it.

errr, you don't need random samples. You can be selective in studies but then it's difficult to generalise. I think I know what the p-value it. It's been decided, and I suppose somewhat arbitrarily that for a hypothesis to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate, you need a p value =< 0.05. However, this number can change depending on how many tests are run. So, something like the bonferroni correction will lessen this number to account for false positives. This is only on the top of my head. What do you think the p-value is?

 

[Sky Rivers]

Did you ever receive an apology phrased
something like
"I am sorry, if it made you feel that way." ?

Yes.

 

[charlie sc]

See, I knew it... I have been saying this for years...
Now, if atheists could only understand the reason to believe in God, they'd be all set.

Sure, we'd need to lower our IQ a few notches first We can take the minusIQ pill. Jokes.

This reminds me of a video I saw years ago.

 

[Brickjectivity]

errr, you don't need random samples. You can be selective in studies but then it's difficult to generalise. I think I know what the p-value it. It's been decided, and I suppose somewhat arbitrarily that for a hypothesis to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternate, you need a p value =< 0.05. However, this number can change depending on how many tests are run. So, something like the bonferroni correction will lessen this number to account for false positives. This is only on the top of my head. What do you think the p-value is?

Sorry, try again. That's not what a p-value is.

I need to explain a misconception you have here. The participants were not chosen and were as random as you could get when participants are recruited for a study. No one in this study was selected

"Self selected" is not selected? More like "Made available to some people at New Scientist, Facebook and Twitter."

They didn't feel they needed to and explained it here - "We have previously demonstrated that gender does not have a significant effect on cognitive performance in Owen et al., 2010; Hampshire et al., 2012a)."

They contend sex has less of an impact than religiosity upon brain function? What about the effects sex might have upon religiosity? They should not have left sex out of their study. It was a stupid choice, but they wanted to cut corners. Maybe it was inconvenient to ask.

errr, you don't need random samples.

For Statistics to have meaning and therefore for their results to have meaning, yes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Depends, honestly. However, I accept being a hypocrite in the eyes of Atheists.

You never struck me as a hypocrite.
I'll have to take your word for it....if you insist.

 

[Audie]

Yes.

Just so you see why I said that.

 

[Audie]

You never struck me as a hypocrite.
I'll have to take your word for it....if you insist.

Shhh. This is an "eyes only".

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This is your opinion, nothing more.

Nope-- it's born out by observational information: Every theist, when questioned, always-- no exception--has a slightly different definition of the term 'god'.

That right there, says that all notions of 'god' come from people-- not external godlike sources of information.

It also explains why there is in excess of 45,000 different brands of 'chrisitan' in the world today.. . the majority of whom cannot get along with the rest...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If sufficient evidence doesn’t exist for a claim, it’s simply something a person asserts as truth, not a fact.

Irony duly noted: Insufficient evidence for all the god-claims, ever made, ever... yet... theists still insist on believing anyway...

 

[charlie sc]

Sorry, try again. That's not what a p-value is.

Ok cool. Don't let me stop you from explaining what it is.

Made available to some people at New Scientist, Facebook and Twitter.

This is quite different from the two quotes bellow.

This study didn't use random sampling did it? Instead it used excuses.

60,000 picked values are not the same as a random sample.

They contend sex has less of an impact than religiosity upon brain function? What about the effects sex might have upon religiosity? They should not have left sex out of their study. It was a stupid choice, but they wanted to cut corners. Maybe it was inconvenient to ask.

If you want we can look at the previous literature on religiosity vs IQ/cognitive ability to see if there is a difference in gender? I'm not sure why you want to focus on this aspect. Do you think there is an IQ/cognitive ability difference between the sexes?

For Statistics to have meaning and therefore for their results to have meaning, yes.

This particular study was as random as you can get from a study distributed and performed online. My point in the quote was that some studies do not use randomisation and they're very selective for who they choose to study. Therefore, to say you need randomisation to have meaningful results is just plain false.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Highly subject to question. IMHO.

Too many famous religious scientist to support that position.

Again... " Internet-cohort studies"

Internet-cohort studies? Hardly a cross-section.

"The relationship between religiosity and intelligence has been an important topic amongst scientists and the public for some time (Harris, 2004; Dennett, 2006; Hitchens, 2007; Dawkins, 2008)."

Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins??????????


Sounds more like "I'll scratch your back if you will scratch mine".

I have to admit it is a bit funny that they couldn't find anyone else to cite.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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

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

Interesting study, but be careful with generalizations. There are plenty of intelligent theists as well.

 

[David T]

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

Apparently higher IQ doesn't equal to understanding atheism only exists in context to religion. Dorks.

 

[atanu]

Keep workin' on them cognitive sills!

For lo-

It appears you not know what the idiom you
half-way quoted means.

The presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that the general rules exists.

No. The general rule is that intellect is not able to understand the depth of consciousness and self.

See, you did not appreciate and/or understand the point conveyed in a previous post (through a BT article) that empirical science does not understand the state of a meditator.

 

[atanu]

Why is it biased, especially if it's true lol ?

Oh. That is the very problem. As if you know what is true.

 

[atanu]

I don't know anything about a God, don't have any good reason to believe anyone else does, did either.

Don’t you ever think that that could be due to a disability? Ha ha.

Do you know your own self?

 

[Audie]

No. The general rule is that intellect is not able to understand the depth of consciousness and self.

See, you did not appreciate and/or understand the point conveyed in a previous post (through a BT article) that empirical science does not understand the state of a meditator.

What i did not understand until you demonstrated was how
from any semblance of on topic you would go in order
to salvage, some sort of win for yiurself.

 

[charlie sc]

Oh. That is the very problem. As if you know what is true.

Someone is triggered.

 

[charlie sc]

Its loaded with voluntary response bias.

I seemed to have missed this response from you. Voluntary response bias is always considered but more so for studies where this applies. This study did not measure opinions or attitudes

 

[charlie sc]

I haven't run across the notion that denial is passive-aggressive before. That, combined with the idea that what is presented is "the truth" is.... odd. The study isn't actually about "theists" and "atheists" either, but you titled the OP in a way to suggest that it is. That's odd too. The study actually uses self-identification as "religious" which is not the same question as asking whether or not one identifies as theist. Granted, the categories the study uses are bizarre, so I can understand the whoops of substituting "theist" for "religious" when discussing this study. Their categories are kind of terrible, and so is the study sampling, frankly. The researchers themselves acknowledge these weaknesses, which is awesome, but let's not pretend that these findings are "the truth" of the matter, yeah?

Your responses are always so informative and to the point. Such a pleasure to read them.

Most importantly of all:

"Similarly, the small-to-medium group effects observed here mean that there is very substantial overlap across populations in terms of cognitive performances. It is therefore inappropriate to generalize these effects to specific individuals."

I sure hope no one is classifying or generalising individuals. That would be bad form.