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

[Audie]

It seams like though your saying flood believers are stupid because they just are. Your not saying why. You say alot because theres no evidence, but, you never provide that evidence. Mayby in past posts you have, but, i havent seen them.

You get a zero on that, other than your last few
words, that you have not seen "them". Though
I do not know what "them" might be.

Some of the flood believers are stupid, some are smart.
They are kind of like the rest of us that way.

I did not say "flood believers stupid", and I cannot provide
reasons for something not true, that I did not say.
It is hardly my fault if you do not red for comprehension.

I did not imply flood believers aer stupid, either.
What I have said, and nobody is likely to ever
show I am wrong, is that it is impossible to be
a well informed flood believer who is intellectually honest.


Now, if you mean evidence (data) that disproves
any possibility of there having been a world wide
flood, that is highly available, and I have frequently
provided examples.

Dont put your own failings off on me with false
accusations.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I wish points like this could be brought up without people calling it hateful and slanderous, etc. A fact is a fact. If the findings are what they are, then there is no use denying them. And if the same sort of test is done and time and time again comes to the same general conclusions, then confidence in the findings should strengthen in accordance with the evidence.

Note that I don't advocate going around calling others stupid, and that's not what this is. There could very well be a real correlation here, because I honestly can't help but notice a fair sized gulf between breadth of knowledge and ability to articulate in purposeful atheists versus purposeful theists on a general basis. I know there are anecdotes of all sorts, obviously. You could point to an atheist who can't form complete sentences, or a theist who is a scientific genius, etc. But generally, I find that theists are much, much poorer at expressing themselves due to an apparent bottleneck in their knowledge and lack of ability to assimilate evidence and information contradictory to their adopted positions.

I can't help but feel it entirely plausible that people who have a harder time grasping more abstract ideas or higher-order math/vocabulary/etc. turn to religion as a way to sort of "level the playing field" that they perceive as being tilted out of their favor. If they have the backing of a God and the other adherents to their religious group, then they can be more confident in pronouncements of pieces of knowledge from their religion as "fact." It is an arena in which they can excel easily - because all it takes is memorization and interpretation of stories in an environment where nearly no interpretation is considered "wrong." Most people don't do any leg-work to research anything rigorously enough to conclude the reality of their hypotheses within the religion, and this is perfectly acceptable - since no one really expects any results anyway - it's all "up to God", and completely out of their hands! It's sort of a lazy-man's "intellectual" route. You don't have to innovate within it, you don't have to use your imagination, or do all that much problem solving. Your brain need do no heavy lifting and this makes little difference to your standing in the discipline.

 

[Audie]

[QUOTE="A Vestigial Mote, post: 6011056, member: 57050"

I can't help but feel it entirely plausible that people who have a harder time grasping more abstract ideas or higher-order math/vocabulary/etc. turn to religion as a way to sort of "level the playing field" that they perceive as being tilted out of their favor. If they have the backing of a God .[/QUOTE]

Sometimes leveling it, with things like that "science is
faith based", or "same evidence, different interpretations'

Christianity has its roots in its role of championing
the underdog; meek shall inherit and all that.

Maybe more often, it is not to level it but
to tilt it all the way to their advantage.
Over and over we see in what was briefly joust
of fact v faith (see "flood") that the talk goes to
something about see who has the last laugh.

t has a lot of draw, in that faith does not require
the long sometimes tedious hours of lecture, lab,
study and research. A quick shotcut to Truth!

 

[ecco]

Me, I figure it takes all kinds of folks to get the things done that need doing. I knew a guy who claimed to have a 180 IQ. The guy was a mess.

A study of 15,000 people is probably more reliable than anecdotal evidence about one person.

 

[ecco]

A couple of years ago a group of researchers picked a selection of papers published in peer-reviewed journals of psychology and tried to replicate the experiments. They failed in half the cases. When I'm told that psychologists have "proved" this that or the other, I yawn and move on.

I'd certainly like to see that study. But, just based on what you wrote...
What were the scientific qualifications of the "researchers" who tried and failed to replicate the experiments? Anyone can classify themselves as "researchers", that does not mean they are qualified to attempt to replicate experiments.

 

[Audie]

I'd certainly like to see that study. But, just based on what you wrote...
What were the scientific qualifications of the "researchers" who tried and failed to replicate the experiments? Anyone can classify themselves as "researchers", that does not mean they are qualified to attempt to replicate experiments.

As per so often, the claim was too vague to
have any value other than to express a chosen
ideology.

 

[ecco]

IQ test results are based on two things: inherent intelligence and learned knowledge.

There are some religious sects that discourage "book learnin'". People raised in these environments cannot, all other things being equal, score as high on IQ tests as people who have had a well-rounded education. These people also would have scored higher on the religious scale more often than not because of family influences and emphasis on religion.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I'm curious though, you can cite these particular studies?

For the unreliable psychological publications, duckduckgo is your friend:
Scientists Replicated 100 Psychology Studies, and Fewer Than Half Got the Same Results | Science | Smithsonian
I don't have the other data to hand — do your own literature search!

 

[charlie sc]

Others have given a good critique and argument, unlike this one, and I'll reply later when I can

For the unreliable psychological publications, duckduckgo is your friend:
Scientists Replicated 100 Psychology Studies, and Fewer Than Half Got the Same Results | Science | Smithsonian
I don't have the other data to hand — do your own literature search!

So, I checked the source that the blog or article(I doubt you read that either) discusses. You should too because it's obvious you haven't read it. I'm always slightly amused, but also annoyed by people who link stuff that has nothing to do with what they're talking about or actually refutes them. This is clear when people nitpick for their confirmation bias.
Here is an extract from the study, "Any temptation to interpret these results as a defeat for psychology, or science more generally, must contend with the fact that this project demonstrates science behaving as it should."
The study took original experiments and correlational studies and replicated them. They found less correlation coefficient than the original. They strongly emphasis the need for replication, which these studies actually do. They found, in general, the less complex the procedure is, the more likely the results will be replicated. The procedure and materials for the studies in the OP are incredibly simple. These IQ vs religiosity, and any other, are replicated and continue to be and their replications show similar results all round(not a decrease). You, literally, defeated yourself.

Read it yourself, but I doubt you will - http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/65159/1/__lse.ac.uk_storage_LIBRARY_Secondary_libfile_shared_repository_Content_Kappes, H_Estimating reproducibility_Kappes_Estimating the reproducibility_2016.pdf

I won't respond to anymore of your posts unless it's well thought out, researched and coherent.

 

[ecco]

So, I checked the source that the blog or article discusses. You should too because it's obvious you haven't read it. I'm always slightly amused, but also annoyed by people who link stuff that has nothing to do with what they're talking about or actually refutes them.

I made a similar observation to another member of this forum in a different thread.

There are indeed people who post links to articles they believe will support their position because of the title of the article. In many cases the opposite is true. Often, as you pointed out, the poster really has not read the article himself. Part of the "strategy" is their hope that no one else actually does follow up and reads the article.

 

[charlie sc]

I made a similar observation to another member of this forum in a different thread.

There are indeed people who post links to articles they believe will support their position because of the title of the article. In many cases the opposite is true. Often, as you pointed out, the poster really has not read the article himself. Part of the "strategy" is their hope that no one else actually does follow up and reads the article.

I get things wrong all the time and it sucks, but learning from that is key and looking at it from another angle. However, I've noticed some people take pleasure in their own ignorance.
Perhaps I should just ignore them, but it's sometimes it's so difficult

 

[charlie sc]

Nah, I'd still get it presented. Sometimes it's about how things are framed. If something is framed as an open question, it makes it sound less like one is being told something along the lines of "(a)theists are deficient in this specific way" and leaves more room for folks to make up their own minds. That's what I usually try to do, at any rate, both on these forums and elsewhere. After all, in most cases it's not as if my word carries any special weight.

As I've touched on, what I really like to see are studies that get more into the specifics. Doing that requires studies of very specific religious demographics and tailoring the surveys to use their language. I've done a number of research surveys on religion here and there. Those that weren't tailored specifically for contemporary Pagans like myself have been terrible. You would think that such surveys would take into account religious diversity better, but they don't. They almost always use monotheistic language, almost always think of religiosity as being indicated by things like church attendance or reading some holy book, and so on. Maybe that would have made sense to do when expressions of religiosity were more in line with such stereotypes, but with such a surge in that "spiritual but not religious" category over the past several decades? It's just weird to see that approach still being used.

Then again, it could be I'm just not that up on the literature. It's my other life that decided to get a post-grad degree in religious studies. In this life, I went "gee, I should get something more employable and practical - SCIENCE! - even though my heart is in this other thing more."

I suppose the next post will be more on a positive note, perhaps religiosity vs crime or mushrooms vs healing. Aye, I suppose they could differentiate religions or religiosity better, I'd need to check. I assume they measure what they do because the majority are monotheistic. If I were religious, between you and me, I prefer polytheism far more because everything is far more down to Earth.
My ex was a Wiccan and and she did spells and whatnot. God, she was crazy(unrelated) but the Wiccan stuff seemed fun

 

[charlie sc]

If there is some connection between intelligence and religiosity, why couldn't there be a link between motivation and religiosity?

One could say many things or construct many plausible narrative explanations, but to be scientifically rigorous we have to know there is no link between religiosity and motivation in such situations. It is not scientific to simply assume it makes no difference because it is convenient to do so.

The problem with many social science experiments is that they have too many variables to effectively isolate the input of each of them and that is why there is such a problem with replication.

Indeed, may speculate and say there is a motivation reason why this is the case. If this was the explanation, I'd find it rather odd why decreased religiosity increased IQ. Anyway, yes, possible explanation.
Well, experiments are actually very good at finding causes. It's correlation studies that lack this. noting that, correlation studies are incredibly useful when used in a critical manner. For instance, it's been taken for granted by doctors, and everyone, that obesity meant ill health, because ill has it's been continuously and consistently associated with obesity. However, recent studies, all longitudinal and correlational found they did not measure physical fitness. They found that fitness was the actual predictor, not obesity. Doctors were wrong The correlation is somewhat correct because most unfit people are obese but it failed to measure physical fitness. Only recently are doctors giving prescriptions of exercise in light of this evidence. So denying it on grounds that there are too many variables is probably a bad move. I'd like to think it'll be far better to find ways to improve these studies than dismiss.

Would you agree that intelligent people should be more likely to revise their beliefs when presented with contradictory evidence?

I don't know.

The above tests showed that people with the kind of "intelligence" measured in IQ tests may actually be less likely to revise their opinions based on evidence, probably as they have better ability to rationalise dismissing whatever is causing their cognitive dissonance.

I haven't had time to properly look at it but I think that's fascinating.

Would you agree that intelligence should take into account real world consequences of decision making, as with credit default swaps for example?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Do we say these people were highly intelligent because they crafted some very complex mathematical models that looked impressive on paper? Or do we say they were idiots because their BS models based on a ridiculous premise were completely wrong and caused untold harm to millions of people around the world?

IQ test are pretty effective at identifying people with learning difficulties, much less so when it comes to functional intelligence

Ah, I see. You could have intelligent people who are doing things for selfish reasons or altruistic reasons but it backfires. Assuming they are intelligent, in analytic thinking anyway, I don't think it means much unless it's put to good use. Intelligence, in this sense, is good when working with complex ideas, which of course can be useful. Though I don't think intelligence determines if it's a good idea.

 

[Jollybear]

You get a zero on that, other than your last few
words, that you have not seen "them". Though
I do not know what "them" might be.

Some of the flood believers are stupid, some are smart.
They are kind of like the rest of us that way.

I did not say "flood believers stupid", and I cannot provide
reasons for something not true, that I did not say.
It is hardly my fault if you do not red for comprehension.

I did not imply flood believers aer stupid, either.
What I have said, and nobody is likely to ever
show I am wrong, is that it is impossible to be
a well informed flood believer who is intellectually honest.


Now, if you mean evidence (data) that disproves
any possibility of there having been a world wide
flood, that is highly available, and I have frequently
provided examples.

Dont put your own failings off on me with false
accusations.

Theres lots of information about evidence for a flood. Have you read that stuff? Or do you just read stuff you believe in?

 

[Jollybear]

I wish points like this could be brought up with people calling it hateful and slanderous, etc. A fact is a fact. If the findings are what they are, then there is no use denying them. And if the same sort of test is done and time and time again comes to the same general conclusions, then confidence in the findings should strengthen in accordance with the evidence.

Note that I don't advocate going around calling others stupid, and that's not what this is. There could very well be a real correlation here, because I honestly can't help but notice a fair sized gulf between breadth of knowledge and ability to articulate in purposeful atheists versus purposeful theists on a general basis. I know there are anecdotes of all sorts, obviously. You could point to an atheist who can't form complete sentences, or a theist who is a scientific genius, etc. But generally, I find that theists are much, much poorer at expressing themselves due to an apparent bottleneck in their knowledge and lack of ability to assimilate evidence and information contradictory to their adopted positions.

I can't help but feel it entirely plausible that people who have a harder time grasping more abstract ideas or higher-order math/vocabulary/etc. turn to religion as a way to sort of "level the playing field" that they perceive as being tilted out of their favor. If they have the backing of a God and the other adherents to their religious group, then they can be more confident in pronouncements of pieces of knowledge from their religion as "fact." It is an arena in which they can excel easily - because all it takes is memorization and interpretation of stories in an environment where nearly no interpretation is considered "wrong." Most people don't do any leg-work to research anything rigorously enough to conclude the reality of their hypotheses within the religion, and this is perfectly acceptable - since no one really expects any results anyway - it's all "up to God", and completely out of their hands! It's sort of a lazy-man's "intellectual" route. You don't have to innovate within it, you don't have to use your imagination, or do all that much problem solving. Your brain need do no heavy lifting and this makes little difference to your standing in the discipline.

In my general perspective, i see atheists as the most irrational, not the theists.

 

[charlie sc]

In my general perspective, i see atheists as the most irrational, not the theists.

Why?

 

[charlie sc]

I'm not sure how accurate IQ tests are, either.
Look at the World just now. Anywhere (mostly) in the World. Just how high is the IQ and how depthy the Common Sense that brought us to this point?

I never really use the word common sense, but it seems to describe by the wisest choice. However, the problem in political decisions, or ones in morality, is that there may be multiple valid answers. What's one man's trash is another's treasure. Similarly, difference cultures, groups and individuals have numerous ideas of what's best.
So, I'm not sure how one could measure this.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

In my general perspective, i see atheists as the most irrational, not the theists.

The irony of your post is absolutely priceless. Just to try and be clear about this, a link to the post of mine that you replied to (of course, you can also reference the quoted text in your own reply - post #155):

Link to post #142

Can you show me where in the text I even once used either of the words "rational" or "irrational?" Do you believe my post was about theists being "irrational?" Is that the topic of this thread or of my post #142?

 

[Audie]

Theres lots of information about evidence for a flood. Have you read that stuff? Or do you just read stuff you believe in?

Why not say it straight out: "are you just as ignorant and
intellectually dishonest as the creos you criticize"?

I suppose if the bible seemed to say that the earth is
hollow, that you guys would all be insisting that it is.

Here is a question for you. Do you think that every single
one of t he tens of thousands of researchers from dozens
of fields of study could possibly have missed ever finding
even one datum point for a "flood" if there had been
such an event?

Do you find it odd that only one subset of christians
who choose a certain way of interpreting the bible
are able to detect "flood evidence", and know more
than all the scientists on earth?

Take you, for example. Do you "know" there was
a flood?

 

[Audie]

The irony of your post is absolutely priceless. Just to try and be clear about this, a link to the post of mine that you replied to (of course, you can also reference the quoted text in your own reply - post #155):

Link to post #142

Can you show me where in the text I even once used either of the words "rational" or "irrational?" Do you believe my post was about theists being "irrational?" Is that the topic of this thread or of my post #142?

I suppose we should go easy on him, but, it is a bit
thick for him to be saying I am intellectually dishonest and
irrational.

I think Clint had some sort of saying about how a man
outta know his limitations.