So apparently religious people are dumber than atheists.

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I've no idea, but the question would interest me.

I think a study showed that people who were more pessimistic/cynical lived longer cause they were less likely to take risks.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't know why people assume doctors are the pinnacle of intelligence....

Not saying that their intelligence isn't higher than the average population but they aren't geniuses.

I once speculated to myself about that. I came up with the brilliant, and I'm absolutely positively certain, the true, notion that the average person doesn't personally know very many people, such as working scientists, who routinely use their heads to solve problems the average person hasn't the education to solve. Hence, doctors might appear to them as the pinnacle of brain power.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I once speculated to myself about that. I came up with the brilliant, and I'm absolutely positively certain, the true, notion that the average person doesn't personally know very many people, such as working scientists, who routinely use their heads to solve problems the average person hasn't the education to solve. Hence, doctors might appear to them as the pinnacle of brain power.

Yeah I had gotten into an arguement with this guy once and his go to for how "a school education doesn't make one intelligent" was that "he had met some doctors who had no common sense." Ignoring that the intelligence measurement in and education isn't simply how much information one is given but the ability to both retain and reason through that information to make logical conclusions and continously review incoming information. I had to just laugh at him.

I have friends in Medschool and the only difference with them and myself in intelligence is that they have a superior work ethic. Pretty much they have the ability to sit down and absorb large amounts of information for a limited time use.

 

[Sunstone]

I have friends in Medschool and the only difference with them and myself in intelligence is that they have a superior work ethic.

That's been my observation, too.:yes:

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That's been my observation, too.:yes:

I had an opportunity to work in a biochemistry lab for a year. Both individuals I worked with were Scientist with P.H.D.'s and they were amazingly humble. I'm not sure what their religious beliefs were but the way they would work through problems and just the amount of knowledge they had in their field was staggering. But what was most amazing was that they could explain it to me on my level.

 

[Sunstone]

I had an opportunity to work in a biochemistry lab for a year. Both individuals I worked with were Scientist with P.H.D.'s and they were amazingly humble. I'm not sure what their religious beliefs were but the way they would work through problems and just the amount of knowledge they had in their field was staggering. But what was most amazing was that they could explain it to me on my level.

I hear all sorts of cautionary tales about "arrogant" scientists from other scientists (e.g. Fiezeweed thinks so much of herself that she cannot see the holes in her hypothesis even when they are pointed out to her!). But I don't meet those scientists myself.

Not saying the tales don't have substance to them, but only saying that the tales might give a distorted impression that genuine arrogance is commonplace among scientists.

I used to hang out with a computer scientist. The local newspaper ran an article on him in which one of the founders of a super-computer company described Jeff as "a genius's genius". That got me racking my mind for any instance in the years I'd known him of Jeff putting someone down as having inferior intelligence to himself. I couldn't recall even one instance of Jeff saying something like, "Jones is stupid". The only thing I could recall were one or two times Jeff joked about himself as stupid. But what really impressed me was recalling how unfailingly Jeff had always treated my ideas with respect. Even my worse ideas he'd be gentle in debunking.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I hear all sorts of cautionary tales about "arrogant" scientists from other scientists (e.g. Fiezeweed thinks so much of herself that she cannot see the holes in hypothesis even when they are pointed out to her!). But I don't meet those scientists myself.

Not saying the tales don't have substance to them, but only saying that the tales might give a distorted impression that genuine arrogance is commonplace among scientists.

I used to hang out with a computer scientist. The local newspaper ran an article on him in which one of the founders of a super-computer company described Jeff as "a genius's genius". That got me racking my mind for any instance in the years I'd known him of Jeff putting someone down as having inferior intelligence to himself. I couldn't recall even one instance of Jeff saying something like, "Jones is stupid". The only thing I could recall were one or two times Jeff joked about himself as stupid. But what really impressed me was recalling how unfailingly Jeff had always treated my ideas with respect. Even my worse ideas.

Scientist don't deal in absolutes outside of the information that they have. Good ones anyway don't.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

 

[Sunstone]

Scientist don't deal in absolutes outside of the information that they have. Good ones anyway don't.

That's absolutely correct!

I once read of a study that suggested a difference between scientists on the one hand, and professional philosophers and theologians on the other. The scientists were found to write about things in much more conditional terms than the others, while the others were found to write about things in much more absolute terms than the scientists.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

LOL!

 

[Sunstone]

I once read of a study that suggested a difference between scientists on the one hand, and professional philosophers and theologians on the other. The scientists were found to write about things in much more conditional terms than the others, while the others were found to write about things in much more absolute terms than the scientists.

The thought has just now occurred to me, Franklin, that it might be possible a large portion of scientists are no brighter than, say, philosophers, theologians, and even business executives, but that the scientists are more likely to be realistic than the others, and that realism helps them arrive at more accurate understandings of things than the others. It's a half baked idea, of course, and assumes that seeing things in conditional terms is more realistic than seeing things in absolutes.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That's absolutely correct!

I once read of a study that suggested a difference between scientists on the one hand, and professional philosophers and theologians on the other. The scientists were found to write about things in much more conditional terms than the others, while the others were found to write about things in much more absolute terms than the scientists.



LOL!

Yup I'm not a scientist but I did my bachelors in public health with concentrations in research and management. And one of the things they pounded into our heads was the difference between correlation and causation when we did studies.

So it was always when writing a paper always becareful to not push things as a cause but show the degree of correlation that they have.

 

[Sunstone]

Yup I'm not a scientist but I did my bachelors in public health with concentrations in research and management. And one of the things they pounded into our heads was the difference between correlation and causation when we did studies.

So it was always when writing a paper always becareful to not push things as a cause but show the degree of correlation that they have.

Great lesson to learn! I really wish it were more commonplace to know and apply that lesson than it seems to be.

 

[ChristineES]

Nah, I consider studies like this to be a load of bollocks by a few atheists who want to mentally masturbate their own egos, so they can congratulate each other about how enlightened and smart they all are.

For one, very possible (and probable) sampling bias.
Two, education level varies in people - is it being assessed correctly? (I doubt it)
Three, religiosity (coaapring a fundy to a suburbanite liberal?)
Four, when relgiosity is the norm, there will be less intelligent people as theists, and vice-versa if irreligious, because they aren't thinking about it.
And five, you have to believe in one, measurable intelligence. I don't think it works.

I've said many times that where I live, irreligiosity is the norm. And some of the stupidest people you will meet are irreligious. They can say some of the stupidest stuff ever, that'd make even a fundy say "don't be silly".



If you become an atheist, does your IQ raise?
And if you become a theist, does your IQ lower?
What a load of bollocks.

This is kind of what I've been trying to say, but not as well as this, obviously.

 

[Sunstone]

I think an interesting study would be to see if there were a difference in intelligence between two kinds of atheists. Those who are vehemently anti-theism and anti-religion, and those who are not.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The thought has just now occurred to me, Franklin, that it might be possible a large portion of scientists are no brighter than, say, philosophers, theologians, and even business executives, but that the scientists are more likely to be realistic than the others, and that realism helps them arrive at more accurate understandings of things than the others. It's a half baked idea, of course, and assumes that seeing things in conditional terms is more realistic than seeing things in absolutes.

Well it depends on how we are measuring intelligence.

There was a video I watched on Youtube of a study that looked at intelligence and the different ways to measure it.

If I remember correctly it was measuring emotional, reasoning, and creative intelligence (there may have been one more). The person who scored the best overall in terms of all three criteria (though he wasn't the top in emotional or creative) was a scientist who studied Quantum Mechinics (lol).

I think genius though is measured in creativity. Those who considered geniuses in history have been individuals who have been creative. Be it creative in science, or creative in art, or creative in philosophy. It's the ability to be able to look at what already exists and say "there's something missing or something can be made different."

So the average scientist might not any smarter than your average philospher, businessman or theologian.

 

[Sunstone]

Usually when you take away the sensationlism and read the actual study...

Oh, you're just a party pooper, that's what you are!

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Great lesson to learn! I really wish it were more commonplace to know and apply that lesson than it seems to be.

Lol I had a professor yell at me once because I said Smoking Causes lung Cancer.

And she was like

"No, there is a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer, one strong enough for us to point out a causation...but given that not everyone who smokes develops lung cancer it is not a causation."

She was right, back when I had taken a woman studies course there had been a video we watched about a transgendered man who had changed almost every part of his body but left the reproductive system intact. That man also been smoking cigarettes for 30 years. They had cervical cancer. Their lungs were fine.

 

[Sunstone]

I think genius though is measured in creativity. Those who considered geniuses in history have been individuals who have been creative. Be it creative in science, or creative in art, or creative in philosophy. It's the ability to be able to look at what already exists and say "there's something missing or something can be made different."

I agree with you there. To say Feynman, for instance, was merely smarter than the average person is suspiciously like saying a Picasso is merely better brushwork than the average painting. There's a whole order of creativity that such a statement would miss.

So the average scientist might not any smarter than your average philospher, businessman or theologian.

I would love to see some science on that! It might -- might! -- have such profound implications.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Oh, you're just a party pooper, that's what you are!

lol well once I can get my hand on the actual study I'll be able to know more about the sample sizes used, what hte actual hypothesis was, and what the actual conclusion was.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree with you there. To say Feynman, for instance, was merely smarter than the average person is suspiciously like saying a Picasso is merely better brushwork than the average painting. There's a whole order of creativity that such a statement would miss.



I would love to see some science on that! It might -- might! -- have such profound implications.

Meh...as someone who works in a fairly challenging business field intellectually, I can tell you that whilst there are some brilliant minds in the business realm, the average businessman is not exactly an intellectual giant.

 

[Sunstone]

Lol I had a professor yell at me once because I said Smoking Causes lung Cancer.

And she was like

"No, there is a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer, one strong enough for us to point out a causation...but given that not everyone who smokes develops lung cancer it is not a causation."

She was right...

My favorite professor of logic simply struck me with how strict he was about such things. Of course, I expected him to be that way when, say, discussing a formal fallacy, but he once objected to me that my view that "all politicians are scoundrels" was a "dangerous generalization". And we were just making casual conversation! I loved him, though.