Who is smarter?

[Faint]

He is talking about intelligence and social behavior together. How often do you think those two bell curves intersect? An infinitessimal minority. Bell curves are broad ranges. He has not defined what standard he is using for his standardized tests. He is using the word "average" as if he were discussing the "mean", which are two different things. I had rather more statistics in college than I ever wanted.

*Yawn* Too much statistics and not enough English, I'm thinking. To put an end to this unintelligent word game of yours, not only are "average" and "mean" synonyms, but the term on average has the standard definition of "taking the typical example of the group under consideration"(Merriam-Webster), which is exactly how I used the term. So get over it.

There's a difference between being smart and being able to act in socially appropriate manners. The two are not linked.

Are you taking about the difference between "book smarts" and "street smarts", and the idea that there are different types of intelligence? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I think the above is 'fair enough'..........do atheists agree ?

It IS a good idea...what's the old saying, you can catch more bees with honey than a gallon of gall? But kindness and respect only get one so far. Eventually you encounter hard resistance, which can either be ignored and avoided, or "forcibly" removed. Besides, I would think that most of the atheists' anger stems from the fire-breathing zealotry of the more extreme religious types in this country. Too often, when you're dealing with ignorant people, gentle language and reasonable arguments fall on deaf ears. Plus, it's very annoying when you kindly show someone a mountain of evidence pointing towards some more logical conclusion, and they won't admit to themselves that such a mountain exists. That's when making fun of people comes in handy. It's unlikely that an athiest is going to change the AVERAGE Christian's mind about anything, so he might as well make sport of it. It's good for publicity.

 

[turk179]

Does anyone know if there have been an studies that show religious people to be (on average) less intelligent than agnostic/non-religious people? Or vice versa?

I ask this because it seems like I read more stories about religious people doing stupid things as opposed to the non-religious, but maybe I'm just biased.

Intelligence is measured by how much a person is capable of learning not by how much a person is willing to learn. Religion can make people overlook scientific fact but it does not take away their natural ability to learn.

 

[jeffrey]

Intelligence is measured by how much a person is capable of learning not by how much a person is willing to learn. Religion can make people overlook scientific fact but it does not take away their natural ability to learn.

Good point! I now think Wi
ccans are the smartest! :woohoo: :bounce:

 

[turk179]

Of course I am one of those people that would probably give mouth to mouth to a chicken. I wonder.....would this be a difficult task with them lacking lips and all?

 

[Aqualung]

Are you taking about the difference between "book smarts" and "street smarts", and the idea that there are different types of intelligence? I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Well, I'm implying that there are different kinds of smarts, yes, but not necessarily "street smarts." Like me, I'm probably one of the smartest people that I know in real life (because a) I know a lot and b) I retain information really well), but I'm socailly very stunted (hence, a college freshman spends hours on an internet forum), and I'm very bad at tact. I've known people who really are good socially and tactful and socially appropriate, but they're dumb as rocks.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I agree. Also, this seems to imply that as people learn more they tend to become more discerning of the irrationality of most religious belief. Take you for example, you used to be religious right? But if I remember correctly, you learned some things that made you question that faith--is that not true? So, would you then say that religious people for the most part simply haven't learned enough yet about this world to understand the nonsense they adhere to? This might be like a history student who cannot describe what the Vietnam War was all about because he hasn't got to that chapter yet. Thus, should they be considered more naive, rather than less intelligent?

Yes, I was raised in church, tho it never felt right to me, and yes, the morsse I learned about history and theology the less religious I became. In my experience, in talking with people, it seems that the more they learn about theology, the less likely they are to be religious, but I say this with a caveat. . . . those who learn about theology in the quest for knowledge, tend to become this way.

But for every one of those, I also know someone who can quote chapter and verse out of the Bible, and are what I would consider quite knowledge-able about theology, at least to the parts of theology found in the Bible. Tho it seems to me, even a lot of people whom most would consider to be Biblical scholars are wont to consider anything outside of the Bible, even if it might bring greater clarity to their version of the Bible.

As far as naive vs. unintelligent, I really think the IQ tests, SAT/ACT scores, and such are a good measure of intelligence; naivite, well, I am not sure how to measure that. Everybody knows of people who are math whiz's but don't have much common sense, for instance. I get the feeling you are kind of equating religious folks to the math whiz. . . I am not real sure if I agree with this or not, I will have to think on this and get back with you.

B.

 

[Squirt]

Does anyone know if there have been an studies that show religious people to be (on average) less intelligent than agnostic/non-religious people? Or vice versa?

:biglaugh: As a religious person, I can't imagine asking such an unintelligent question. :biglaugh:

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

So you think whites really are "smarter" than blacks and hispanics and that asians are "smarter" than these groups, but apparently not "smarter" than hassidic jews?

I'm sorry, my friend, but there is tons of researching showing how standardized tests are biased.

The examples you give are all physical and can be easily tested. And, yes, I agree they are all true statements.

Are you suggesting the genetics of a race influences that race's intelligence?

Why is it so easy to accept that one group can, on average, be faster, or stronger than another, but so difficult to accept that one group may, on average be smarter than another?

If you can accept that genetics can affect physical ability, why can you not accept that those same, or similar, genes could affect the capacity to learn and retain information? Again, I think you are letting wishful thinking and political correctness get in the way of what you must rationally recognize as true.

I know it is not popular to say, and it will get any public figure crucified for doing so, but there is a reason why there have been no caucasions crack the 10 second barrier in the 100 meter dash. And there is also a reason why when I was applying for scholarships coming out of high school I had to have a higher ACT score to garner a given scholarship than I would have, had I been a racial minority. If I had my CDIB (Certificate of Degree of Indian Birth) I would have had a full academic scholarship to an ivy league school. As my Great Great Grandmother refused to get her CDIB, and my Great Grandfather also refused to get one, I ended up going to a state school, on a full ride, rather than Yale or Harvard with the same ride.

For the record, the smartest human being I have ever personally known, was a female, black, law school professor, who was from West Africa and whose parents moved to the U.S. when she was a child. She performed a mental feat the likes of which never seen before or since. Our first day of school, she had every person in the room say their name, their undergraduate school, and their undergraduate major, and then after about 65 people did this, began calling on them by name, and referencing their undergraduate schools and majors in her questions to them. She memorized approximately 190 random facts and matched them up with faces in a space of about 5 or 6 minutes.

I am not some ******* who thinks that every man is stronger than every woman, nor that every West African can outrun every Caucasion, or that every Asian will outscore every Hispanic on the SAT's. But averages exist, statistics exist and whether the P.C. crowd likes it or not, not everyone on this planet was born with the same abilities, mental or physical. I cannot dunk a basketball. When I was in high school and was the point guard for our high school team, I still could not dunk. We had several guys on our team who could hardly spell their own names, but could dunk a ball any time they felt like it. We simply were not gifted equally.

Different folks have different gifts in different areas, and you know what? That's OK.

B.

 

[nutshell]

^^^
And yet the research disagrees with you.

I'm fine with the fact that not all are equal. I accept this.
But the research seems to indicate IQ is mostly influenced by the environment and not genetics.

 

[Cynic]

So a peasant from Communist China will have a natural tendancy to score better on the SAT than an african american student of a private school? I think it's common sense that such a test shows the differences of social, economic, and environmental conditions, rather than difference of intelligence by ethnicity. Asians being smarter than whites, blacks, and hispanics is not proven scientifically. The human race has a small 1% genetical difference, every human is 99% genetically related to each other.

And back to the OP, I think such tests simply show that certain people who are more well informed have more of a tendency to become skeptical, because much objective/scientifical evidense contradicts and outweighs several of the claims and beliefs that religion has made. There are stupid, average, and intelligent people regardless of religion or ethnicity.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

1. So a peasant from Communist China will have a natural tendancy to score better on the SAT than an african american student of a private school?

2. There are stupid, average, and intelligent people regardless of religion or ethnicity.

To number 1 above, assuming the test was given in English I would not give the Chinese peasant much of a chance in your example. And I never said all asians were smarter than all blacks, or anything close to that. I actually went out of my way to say that I did not for one instant think that. And I have already stated, that the smartest person I have ever actually met was an actual African American - as in born in Africa to African parents, but resides in America now. Finding exceptions does not disprove the averages. There are some women out there who are stronger than some men, this does not disprove the statement that men, in general are stronger than women.

To number 2 above, You are 100% correct. I can't imagine that anyone could argue with that statement.

B.

 

[Cynic]

To number 1 above, assuming the test was given in English I would not give the Chinese peasant much of a chance in your example. And I never said all asians were smarter than all blacks, or anything close to that. I actually went out of my way to say that I did not for one instant think that. And I have already stated, that the smartest person I have ever actually met was an actual African American - as in born in Africa to African parents, but resides in America now. Finding exceptions does not disprove the averages. There are some women out there who are stronger than some men, this does not disprove the statement that men, in general are stronger than women.

To number 2 above, You are 100% correct. I can't imagine that anyone could argue with that statement.

B.

Well that question was rhetoric, and I understood what you said. I just used that opening question to support my point that social, economic, and environmental conditions are involved. I think that such statistics, if it proves anything, it would be the differences of social, economic, and evironmental conditions by ethnicity.

 

[michel]

Well that question was rhetoric, and I understood what you said. I just used that opening question to support my point that social, economic, and environmental conditions are involved. I think that such statistics, if it proves anything, it would be the social, economic, and evironmental differences by ethnicity.

I tend to agree, even if this is getting slightly off topic...........

 

[Quiddity]

We all know this? Are you kidding? In standardized testing, yes whites tend to score, on average higher than blacks and hispanics, tho lower than asians, and hassidic jews score highest of all. How is any of what I just typed not true?

Darn it Mdm....now no one is going to take me serious...:biglaugh:

 

[dawny0826]

On the OP: Religion is not, by a long shot, the only reason people do stupid things. But it does seem to be, along with greed, lust, and nationalism, one of the main reasons they do hateful and violent things.

Along with pride and conviction...

 

[jeffrey]

Of course I am one of those people that would probably give mouth to mouth to a chicken. I wonder.....would this be a difficult task with them lacking lips and all?

THIS, I'd pay to see!

 

[turk179]

THIS, I'd pay to see!

Even though chickens have no lips he might get a pair after I was done. Mine .

 

[ch'ang]

In my personal experience atheists do tend to be smatter then theists, if you want an example look at the AA (atheists anonymous) club I started at my high school, everyone in it is ranked 13th in the their class or higher, many of us scored a 1600 on the SATS when we all took them last year, the people ranked first in every grade are in it ect ect. To me this is enough proof that atheists on average are smatter than theists, although this may be a rare instance in my school.

 

[Franklin]

Okay, here's something more recent:

In Explorations: An undergraduate research journal, Regan Clarke reports religious belief and behavior were negatively correlated with SAT scores in the USA.[4] In 2000, noted skeptic Michael Shermer found a negative correlation between education and religosity in the United States, though Rice University indicates this may not apply to the social sciences.[5]

Several studies on Americans focus on the beliefs of high-IQ individuals. In one study, 90% of the general population surveyed professed a distinct belief in a personal god and afterlife, while only 40% of the scientists with a BS surveyed did so, and only 10% of those considered "eminent."[6]. Another study found that mathematicians were just over 40%, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God.[7]

A survey of members of the United States National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God.[8]

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiousness_and_intelligence)

Ok, for the sake of arguement lets consider this to be an accurate study, and religous people are simply filling a void in their meager minds with something they can comprehend. So what? What would be the point in giving a damn? If that is true religion should be gone within the next 10,000 years or so as we become more intelligent. I think man has a need for religion, and I would suppose that the above statistics would indicate a lack of some others. For example the 90% was the overall population, why not compare a group with only a HS education, or a group without a HS education. What is the gender bias? What of the group with BA theology? I think those numbers can be considered sensational at best. Also, it has been my experience that wikipedia is not a terribly unbiased source.

 

[Franklin]

In my personal experience atheists do tend to be smatter then theists, if you want an example look at the AA (atheists anonymous) club I started at my high school, everyone in it is ranked 13th in the their class or higher, many of us scored a 1600 on the SATS when we all took them last year, the people ranked first in every grade are in it ect ect. To me this is enough proof that atheists on average are smatter than theists, although this may be a rare instance in my school.

I think there is a lot to be said here. I do have some questions, wouldn't atheists anonymous indicate you were trying to find god? It would seem to me that this group was probably a close click to begin with, and if I am not mistaken a belief in any god would be considered uncool, am I wrong? no of course I am not. Also you failed to mention what study did you perform with the rest of the school population? What is the overall demographic, and religous preference in you school in general, specifically among the kids in the "leg up program"? My guess? Atheists, at least if you took the time to explain what that is.