Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8143 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-25-2014 6:49 PM
83 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps, DrJones*
Post Volume:
Total: 738,613 Year: 24,454/28,606 Month: 1,755/1,786 Week: 617/423 Day: 44/113 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456Next
Author Topic:   Religion and IQ
frako
Member
Posts: 2402
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 1 of 88 (597593)
12-22-2010 4:13 PM


I actually did not believe that there is a correlation tough all of the studies i found show that religious persons have a lower IQ then non religious persons.

The first thing i found was

from http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

Tough this could be disputed because there are other causes that correlate like GDP.

So i looked further and i found more interesting studies like

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious S's tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious S's."

And there is more on the subject on this site from where the quotes come
from
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/...Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

So does this mean that we atheists had it all wrong and the religious are not being stubborn and deluded on purpose they just cannot grasp reality and evidence as easily as we can.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by frako, posted 12-23-2010 1:07 PM frako has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Mr Jack, posted 12-23-2010 4:01 PM frako has responded
 Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 12-23-2010 4:10 PM frako has responded
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2010 11:21 AM frako has responded
 Message 68 by slevesque, posted 01-06-2011 9:49 PM frako has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2402
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 2 of 88 (597694)
12-23-2010 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
12-22-2010 4:13 PM


So any thoughts on this from the admins, anything at all ?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 12-22-2010 4:13 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 12-23-2010 3:39 PM frako has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 11443
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 3 of 88 (597706)
12-23-2010 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by frako
12-23-2010 1:07 PM


frako writes:

So any thoughts on this from the admins, anything at all ?

This admin doesn't put much stock in IQ tests, but what you're probably really wondering about is when this will be promoted. I generally stay away from the religious threads, so when I saw "Religion" in the title I didn't take a look, but now that I've read your proposal I think this would be a good fit for the Is It Science? forum.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by frako, posted 12-23-2010 1:07 PM frako has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 11443
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 4 of 88 (597708)
12-23-2010 3:39 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Religion and IQ thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Mr Jack
Member
Posts: 3484
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 5 of 88 (597711)
12-23-2010 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
12-22-2010 4:13 PM


I'm going to ignore the country graph, I think it's silly.

Otherwise, I strongly suspect all that is being measured here is the tendency of the intelligent to adopt culturally differential opinions and attitudes. I predict if you were to measure this in China, where Atheism is the norm, you'd find that the religious have a higher IQ on average.

Even if the correlation is true, it's not clear that it means anything since it's abundantly clear that there are large numbers of clever believers, and stupid atheists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 12-22-2010 4:13 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by frako, posted 12-23-2010 4:52 PM Mr Jack has responded

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3355
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 6 of 88 (597712)
12-23-2010 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
12-22-2010 4:13 PM


Unsharpened, not dull
The first thing that occurs to me is that the IQ tests are measuring the barrier religiosity raises to acquiring knowledge and critical reasoning skills.

I see IQ tests as measurements of culturally-dependent knowledge: I don't recall the source, but one infamous IQ test example involved questions about golf presented to inner city black kids. In general, a culturally-steeped bright kid will do well; a bright outsider will not.

frako writes:

So does this mean that we atheists had it all wrong and the religious are not being stubborn and deluded on purpose they just cannot grasp reality and evidence as easily as we can?

I'd say the religious are not just "being stubborn and deluded on purpose" and "they cannot grasp reality and evidence easily"--not because their native intelligence is low, but because their minds are shackled by the beliefs that prevent their development.


I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 12-22-2010 4:13 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 12-23-2010 4:22 PM Omnivorous has responded
 Message 10 by frako, posted 12-23-2010 5:01 PM Omnivorous has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24783
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 7 of 88 (597715)
12-23-2010 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Omnivorous
12-23-2010 4:10 PM


Re: Unsharpened, not dull
Omni writes:

I'd say the religious are not just "being stubborn and deluded on purpose" and "they cannot grasp reality and evidence easily"--not because their native intelligence is low, but because their minds are shackled by the beliefs that prevent their development.

Like Georges Lemaître and Greg Mendel?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 12-23-2010 4:10 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Omnivorous, posted 12-23-2010 4:34 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3355
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 8 of 88 (597718)
12-23-2010 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
12-23-2010 4:22 PM


Re: Unsharpened, not dull
You are welcome to your exceptions, jar. But exceptions only refute absolute assertions. I didn't make any of those.

I'm offering frako an alternate explanation for the reported IQ test results. Of course some religious folks are superbly educated, but that's not what happens in the burgeoning church school and home schooling movements.

As I said to frako, that was the first alternate explanation that occurred to me.

I'm not wedded to it, and I welcome others, or even a dismissal of the data entirely, if reason warrants.


I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 12-23-2010 4:22 PM jar has not yet responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2402
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 9 of 88 (597724)
12-23-2010 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mr Jack
12-23-2010 4:01 PM


I predict if you were to measure this in China, where Atheism is the norm, you'd find that the religious have a higher IQ on average.

IQ is a measurement of different skills it has nothing to do with knowledge (well a small bit one need to know how to read, and in some cases calculate).

I dunno if you have ever taken an iq test but while i was in school one was preformed before you entered primary school. (just in case some one with a very high iq or a very low IQ would not be neglected or misunderstood.) And one some where in the middle of primary school to see how we are doing. I dunno those tests tough as a joke i applied for Mensa and failed by 20 points lol still not bad.

And IQ does not remain the same trough ones lifetime. If you think of the brain as a muscle the more you use it the stronger it gets and if you do not use it it gets weak.

A better one to use would be Japan only 12% of them say religion is verry important and they have an average IQ of 105, While the US 60% of the people say that religion is verry important and you have an average IQ of 98/97

Sadly i do not have a survey perticulary questioning a person in those regions about their beliefs and their IQ as a comparison.

Even if the correlation is true, it's not clear that it means anything since it's abundantly clear that there are large numbers of clever believers, and stupid atheists.

Sure there are exceptions to any norm

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mr Jack, posted 12-23-2010 4:01 PM Mr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Mr Jack, posted 12-24-2010 5:32 AM frako has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2402
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 10 of 88 (597725)
12-23-2010 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Omnivorous
12-23-2010 4:10 PM


Re: Unsharpened, not dull
I see IQ tests as measurements of culturally-dependent knowledge: I don't recall the source, but one infamous IQ test example involved questions about golf presented to inner city black kids. In general, a culturally-steeped bright kid will do well; a bright outsider will not.

Usualy IQ tests have no baring if you come from bangladesh or the US.

things like this are in it and you have to anwser right by selecting one of the answers.

The further you progress trough such a test the harder it gets and using the time it took you to solve it and the number of correct answers a psychologist then takes what not in to account and calculates your IQ

I see no reason why culture would have an impact, what would have an impact is the use of ones mind in the course of ones lifetime up to the test.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Omnivorous, posted 12-23-2010 4:10 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by zombie ringo, posted 12-23-2010 5:31 PM frako has responded
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 12-23-2010 5:39 PM frako has responded

    
zombie ringo
Member
Posts: 9714
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 11 of 88 (597731)
12-23-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by frako
12-23-2010 5:01 PM


Re: Unsharpened, not dull
I always have trouble with the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others questions. To me, they're all different and if it was an essay question, I could explain why. IQ tests require simple answers to what some might perceive as complex questions. They seem to depend more on quick pattern recognition than on actual thought.

I have a suspicion that religious people tend to like the easy answers and might do better than me on the tests.


"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by frako, posted 12-23-2010 5:01 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by frako, posted 12-23-2010 8:52 PM zombie ringo has not yet responded

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3355
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 12 of 88 (597732)
12-23-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by frako
12-23-2010 5:01 PM


Re: Unsharpened, not dull
You are defining culture too narrowly.

The culture of the materially advantaged differs dramatically from that of the materially disadvantaged.

My kids had toys that exposed them as infants and toddlers to geometric shapes and spatial relationships. They had games that promoted memory, calculation and inference. They learned to read at precocious ages because I made it a point to teach them.

We would talk about why they did well on some tests in school and not others, and how they could do better. They had no learning disabilities and would have received focused therapy for them if they did.

That's a pretty common middle-class cultural phenomenon. They both scored extremely well on IQ tests.

Consider some of their friends, who lived in homes where toys were blunt instruments, with no intention or reference to cognitive development, where parents were indifferent or hostile to education, where they learned to read only when they reached school, and often not then: remarkably, the U.S. educational system is capable of producing illiterate high school graduates.

Early on, students from low income families who have learning disabilities or who lag behind due to their familial environment are warehoused in "special" classes, where they lose even more ground.

That's a pretty common cultural phenomenon for low income families in the U.S.

Your first example shines with the purity of geometrical shapes--what could be more fair?

My kids would have sailed right through it; a kid unexposed to those shapes in a meaningful context early on would struggle with their bare significance, let alone their series relationships.

A kid who reads poorly or not at all because U.S. taxpayers no longer want to support decent schools would epically fail your second problem, as would an undiagnosed dyslexic untrained in coping strategies.

Plants are cultured poorly or well. It makes no sense to culture one poorly, then tag it as innately inferior.

IQ tests are cultural artifacts. It is a tragic mistake to think they are objective measures of intelligence, actual or potential.

Edited by Omnivorous, : tpyo


I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by frako, posted 12-23-2010 5:01 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 12-23-2010 6:25 PM Omnivorous has responded
 Message 15 by frako, posted 12-23-2010 8:37 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 13 of 88 (597737)
12-23-2010 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Omnivorous
12-23-2010 5:39 PM


Re: Unsharpened, not dull
What I was taught was that IQ tests best test the ability to take IQ tests.

Not only do IQ tests contain cultural biases, but also species biases. Hanabi-ko ("Fire Flower Girl", AKA "Fireworks Girl", because she was acquired on 04 July), AKA "Koko", the signing gorilla cover-girl for National Geographic, was given a number of human IQ tests and was scored at 85 and 95. The lower scores were attributed to species bias, such questions as where you would go when it starts to rain; two of the choices were a tree and a house, so as a gorilla she naturally chose the tree whereas a human child would have chosen the house.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 12-23-2010 5:39 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Omnivorous, posted 12-23-2010 6:49 PM dwise1 has responded
 Message 17 by frako, posted 12-23-2010 8:44 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3355
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 14 of 88 (597739)
12-23-2010 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by dwise1
12-23-2010 6:25 PM


Re: Unsharpened, not dull
Thanks for that dramatic example.

If anyone wants to see the kind of abusive discrimination IQ-test biases produce, google "smarter than koko" without the quotes.

Pretty ugly.


I know there's a balance, I see it when I swing past.
-J. Mellencamp

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 12-23-2010 6:25 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 12-23-2010 8:37 PM Omnivorous has responded

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2402
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 15 of 88 (597747)
12-23-2010 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Omnivorous
12-23-2010 5:39 PM


Re: Unsharpened, not dull
The culture of the materially advantaged differs dramatically from that of the materially disadvantaged.

So you are saying religious people tend to be poorer and tend not to promote education to their children.

And still what you have pointed out is not a cultural difference but a difference in standard countries with a lower GDP often tend to have a lower IQ average.

Tough many studies that have been preformed in the past 100 years show that people who are more religius tend to have a lower IQ and do less well in school to.

Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

Early on, students from low income families who have learning disabilities or who lag behind due to their familial environment are warehoused in "special" classes, where they lose even more ground.

They get to go to "special" care classes to they do lose ground because those classes proceed slower then normal classes so the children can at least learn the basic my neighbor was such a case and he finished highshcool of economics after he finished the "special/slower" primary school. We think of it as a good thing because if those children where in the same class as those whiteout learning disabilities the "normal" ones would suffer th same goes for the high IQ or smart kids the first iq test is ment to identify them early one so that the teachers can help them achieve their full potential. Usually after class stuff sometimes skipping grades ....

IQ tests are cultural artifacts. It is a tragic mistake to think they are objective measures of intelligence, actual or potential.

Actually they can be of use to find potential, tough as i said somewhere above IQ is not wholy given at birth if you do not use your brain it will get weak as your muscles get weak if you do not use them. One could use it also as an indicator of how much you actually use your brain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Omnivorous, posted 12-23-2010 5:39 PM Omnivorous has not yet responded

    
1
23456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014