religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence

[Jollybear]

If I may say, For the general scientific consensus to work, they would have to give it those people who are strong in their beliefs and faith for it to work.

Let's say, they take a bunch of people who can not swim at all, and wants them to swim in 8 foot of water and the length of a swimming pool.
Now how exactly is this going to work to give them a high grade in swimming, when they can't even swim at all.

So what the general scientific consensus did, is take a bunch of people who's beliefs and faith are weak and give them a IQ test.

Yes, thats a factor, correct. And theres more factors. Like, some people (atheist or religious) who have bad memories and some who are intelligent and some who are not.

What one mentally assents too in belief is not gonna perse make or not make them critical thinkers.

 

[Jollybear]

Maybe you remember what I wrote to you about the
difference between memorizing and understanding.

You had said that you remember little of the science
you read. I pointed out that if you understood what you
read, you would not forget.

Yes, you did tell me that, and in general, that is true, the more one understands, the more they remember.

However, there are things ive read (from christian sources) that i also forgot too.

Sometimes some peopke just have terrible memories when it comes to readibg information.

However, when it comes to hands on experience, my memory is very good. Experience really makes for understanding and really jams it in the memory then.

Recently, i was reading some articles on ducksters. This site > Biology for Kids: Cell Ribosome

And each article has a test quiz at the end. I read 1 article, did the test and made 100. The other i read, took the test, also made 100. The third article i made 50. It was because the science names for certain things wer so weird, i couldnt remember it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I do think that anyone who automatically claims and states such things must have a very low IQ themselves.

Why would you think that?

 

[oldbadger]

The general scientific consensus(1) shows religiosity and the strength of religious belief is associated with less IQ. The procedure and and materials needed for these studies seem fairly simple to perform. Gather a bunch of people, have them do an IQ test, or similar, and then ask how religious they are or the intensity of their belief. Consistently, participants that score higher on the religious scale will rank lower in IQ. However, it's not just limited to IQ; more recent research demonstrates less analytic cognition and less scientific and mathematical knowledge. So, as an example for this topic, Kanazawa(2) performed a study with 15,197 Americans. He found, on a 1-4 scale(1 = not religious, 4 = very religious) that IQ decreased, on average 6 points, per scale.

This question is for theists, but atheists may respond.
Why do you think religiosity and/or strength of religious belief negatively correlates with IQ?


References

(1) http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-cont...a-Analysis-and-Some-Proposed-Explanations.pdf

(2) http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/spq2010.pdf

Did Kanazawa research levels of common sense as well as intelligence quotient?

Huh? No? Hmmmmm...... No common sense, then.

 

[Jollybear]

I am pretty sure that if a person believes in noahs ark,
it is a sign that they may not be real bright.

Lets assume for a moment Noahs ark did not happen.

There is ancient documents saying there was an ark.

Someone reads those and says to themselves "why would the ancients make this up?"

How does that make them unbright, non intelligent people?

 

[DanishCrow]

Friendly reminder that Emil Kirkegård is a racist hack, and does the same kind of disproven biological IQ science as Helmut Nyborg. Check out their other papers (or don't, you won't feel wiser for it) like "Differential immigrant group performance: A matter of intelligence?" and "Polygenic Scores Mediate the Jewish Phenotypic Advantage in Educational Attainment and Cognitive Ability Compared With Catholics and Lutherans" - fun for the whole family!

Even if it wasn't colossally inept and xenophobic to begin with, it's bad science for not taking social, cultural and economic variables into account as well.

 

[Augustus]

If there is a problem with the methodology, I'd be keenly interested.

One issue with studies like this is that people aren't always motivated to try their hardest. When people were offered minor incentives to do the test results were significantly improved. With increased motivation, lower IQ individuals increased by around 15 IQ points on average, and it is unlikely that people became fully motivated simply by being offered $10 or so.

Given the significance of the impact of motivation on outcomes, I'm not sure how results can be considered reliable unless there is a way to account for motivation.

Role of test motivation in intelligence testing

... we examined whether motivation is less than maximal on intelligence tests administered in the context of low-stakes research situations. Specifically, we completed a meta- analysis of random-assignment experiments testing the effects of material incentives on intelligence-test performance on a collective 2,008 participants. Incentives increased IQ scores by an average of 0.64 SD, with larger effects for individuals with lower baseline IQ scores [0.98SD]... Collectively, our findings suggest that, under low-stakes research conditions, some individuals try harder than others, and, in this context [can significantly affect research findings]

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/108/19/7716.full.pdf



Also, IQ doesn't test for intelligence, it tests for a limited range of things that may have some impact on intelligence and does so in an unnatural context freed from broader implications of a 'bigger picture'.

If you explained credit default swaps that contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 I'm sure you would find a correlation that showed high IQ people being more likely to believe that cleverly packaging lots of bad debt actually made for an ultra safe investment. As Orwell noted "there are some ideas that are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them".

Other tests have shown that people with better analytical reasoning abilities (part of IQ) are less likely to change their opinions when presented with contradictory evidence. For example:

The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief

In this vein, one study examined the relationship between math skills and political problem- solving [58]. In the control condition, people who were strong at math were able to effectively solve an analytical problem. However, when political content was added to the same analytical problem – comparing crime data in cities that banned handguns against cities that did not – math skills no longer predicted how well people solved the problem. Instead, liberals were good at solving the problem when it proved that gun control reduced crime, and conservatives were good at solving the problem when it proved the opposite. In short, people with high numeracy skills were unable to reason analytically when the correct answer collided with their political beliefs. This is consistent with research showing that people who score high on various indicators of information processing, such as political sophistication ([59]; although see [48]), science literacy [60], numeracy abilities [58], and cognitive reflection [61], are the most likely to express beliefs congruent with those of their party...


Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics

Public opinion toward some science and technology issues is polarized along religious and political lines. We investigate whether people with more education and greater science knowledge tend to express beliefs that are more (or less) polarized. Using data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, we find that more knowledgeable individuals are more likely to express beliefs consistent with their religious or political identities for issues that have become polarized along those lines (e.g., stem cell research, human evolution), but not for issues that are controversial on other grounds (e.g., genetically modified foods). These patterns suggest that scientific knowledge may facilitate defending positions motivated by nonscientific concerns.


IQ tests are a bit like testing someone's 100m sprinting ability and using it as a substitute for how good they'd be at football.

 

[Audie]

Did Kanazawa research levels of common sense as well as intelligence quotient?

Huh? No? Hmmmmm...... No common sense, then.

What people like to think of as common sense
leads them betimes into a lot of mistakes. Or stupidity.

Now, if you have some verifiable metrics to apply
to commonsense, terrif. Otherwise, the "hmmm"
is best applied while looking in the mirror.

 

[Augustus]

What people like to think of as common sense
leads them betimes into a lot of serious stupidity.

Likewise what people like to think of as intelligence...

 

[Audie]

Lets assume for a moment Noahs ark did not happen.

There is ancient documents saying there was an ark.

Someone reads those and says to themselves "why would the ancients make this up?"

How does that make them unbright, non intelligent people?

Your q is kind of irrelevant, but, since you asked-sure
a person might wonder why they made up such a story.
The world is full of similarly made up stories, so why
particularly wonder about that particular one?

It may not mean a person is stupid to think they would
not say it if it is not true, but it is a sign that they
have not, maybe have not permitted themselves
to think about it.


Now, oldbad said something about common sense.

Common sense ought to be able to prevent, or cure people of
floodism, Like seriously who could believe such a thing?

Either the floodies have no common sense,or, common
sense is neither effective nor common.

With the easy abundance of good information
now available, it is not a sign of high intelligence if
a person looks at the topic, and still thinks the flood
really happened. What does it seem to you to indicate?

You will notice,should you check into it, that the fundie
churches draw their strength from the trailer parks.
Not the halls of academe.

It is simply impossible to be simultaneously
well educated, intellectually honest, and believe
in Noah's ark.

You decide what you think that says about
ark-believers.

 

[Audie]

Likewise what people like to think of as intelligence...

Oh? Your ellipsis suggests you left something out.
Please give an example.

 

[Augustus]

Oh? Your ellipsis suggests you left something out.
Please give an example.

See post 67 -> religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence

 

[Audie]

See post 67 -> religiosity and/or strength of religious belief is associated with less intelligence

high IQ people being more likely to believe that cleverly packaging lots of bad debt actually made for an ultra safe investment. As Orwell noted "there are some ideas that are so stupid that only an intellectual could believe them".

I might think that intelligent people would do this,
but I am not likely to think it is intelligence.

As for what others think is intelligence, I could not say.

But anyway, you may have more or less made a point.
If so, what is it?

 

[Quintessence]

A lot of basic resesrch is criticized for having no
evident and immediate value.

This situation is of a different kind than the basic research you are talking about. Research like this touches upon cultural values and has very direct implications for how humans treat each other. Any research whose inquiries paint huge groups of people in a negative light is going to do that. Whether intentional or not, it encourages prejudice and nasty stereotyping. In an era where it's in vogue to attack those who identify as or are labeled as religious, I find inquiries like this to be in poor taste. Especially because religion and religiosity are, as I mentioned before, so incredibly heterogenous. Whether or not academics and scholars understand the very limited applicability of the research is almost irrelevant when the general public inevitably reaches simplistic "hurp durp religious people are stoopid" take homes from it.

 

[Audie]

This situation is of a different kind than the basic research you are talking about. Research like this touches upon cultural values and has very direct implications for how humans treat each other. Any research whose inquiries paint huge groups of people in a negative light is going to do that. Whether intentional or not, it encourages prejudice and nasty stereotyping. In an era where it's in vogue to attack those who identify as or are labeled as religious, I find inquiries like this to be in poor taste. Especially because religion and religiosity are, as I mentioned before, so incredibly heterogenous. Whether or not academics and scholars understand the very limited applicability of the research is almost irrelevant when the general public inevitably reaches simplistic "hurp durp religious people are stoopid" take homes from it.

I am aware that studies showing the high rate
of criminality among black people are not popular.

Whether the study is in poor taste may well be
a factor in considering whether to do it or publicize
the results, but as a determining factor, I would say
no. A lot of facts are not popular.

And as for what people do with the results-well,
some have blamed basic research in physics for,
you know, the Bomb.

I think where this kind of study, or "study" goes
perniciously off the rails is if it is done with bias
and invidious intent.

An unpopular fact (unpopular with the fundies)
is that they are primarily from the low education,
low income, low socio economic rungs.

They immediately attack the study, if one is brought
up. They could look around their church, and see
for themselves.

If stoopid is as stoopid does, well, then, there is a lot
of stoopid people in summa them churches.

 

[Audie]

Nope not at all,
What it means is, that with the decline of religion is not that people are getting smarter, But people are lacking of understanding and knowledge of what the bible/scriptures actually does say and confirms.
All because those people in religion listen to the teachings of man's and not what the bible/scriptures does teach and confirm's.

So it's not their getting smarter, but less intelligent.

So do you think it is intelligent to believe in noahs ark?

 

[Augustus]

I might think that intelligent people would do this,
but I am not likely to think it is intelligence.

That is somewhat tautological. What is intelligence and how do we identify it?

There is no rigorous way to quantify intelligence, just arbitrarily selected mental capabilities.

You might be able to quantify certain types of reasoning ability in a vacuum, but better reasoning ability also enables you to reason your way into holding stupid beliefs, and reason your way out of accepting any evidence that you dislike (see cited scientific studies above).

"Intelligence" also makes it easier for us to acquire and apply false information (anti-knowledge).

"Intelligence" is not wisdom, and wisdom is the only thing that really counts whether it comes from experience, intelligence, common sense or something else..

But anyway, you may have more or less made a point.
If so, what is it?

That just as "common sense" can lead to stupid beliefs, so can "intelligence".

 

[Faithofchristian]

So do you think it is intelligent to believe in noahs ark?

If you were not limited in your understanding and knowledge

 

[syo]

Why do you think religiosity and/or strength of religious belief negatively correlates with IQ?

Because we are smart! If iq geniuses think I'm dumb then i'm on the right track.

 

[Audie]

If you were not limited in your understanding and knowledge

Makes sense, depending a bit on what you mean.

How about literate people with access to google.

 

[Audie]

Because we are smart! If iq geniuses think I'm dumb then i'm on the right track.

On the track to what, we wonder. ( )