People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study

[kpete]

Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor

Last Updated: 2:57PM BST 12/06/2008
People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.

Professor Lynn said religious belief had declined in the 20th century

Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the "intellectual elite" considered themselves atheists than the national average.

A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed.

more at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-/'less-likely-to-believe-in-God/'.html

[SharonAnn]

1. Well, that's true in this household.

[papau]

2. Not true in this House - a couple of 170's and other 5 not below 140 - all religious

[Indenturedebtor]

7. Well it's a correlation, and hardly surprising n/t

[papau]

12. True - there are a lot of super ego obnoxious folks that publicly disdain religion and claim high IQ

[Indenturedebtor]

17. Lol that's true. Personally I think religion has it's place

And I cherish it's role in my upbringing, philosophical development, cultural development, etc. But as a guide for explaining the universe, there are better options at this point.

[timtom]

113. Its intent is not to explain the universe.

Buddha relegated such considerations (i.e. the nature of "God") as questions not tending to edification. He went on to outline his four noble truths and the eightfold path to dealing with life in an intelligent and compassionate way.

[Mountainman]

31. "super ego obnoxious folks" Wouldn't those be people with fishes and "got jesus?" stickers on their

cars.

I would think that shoving your religion in my face at a stop light would qualify someone as being super ego obnoxious folks.
I drive past churches that have guilt statements on plaques on their lawns. That to me is super ego obnoxious.

[Kolesar]

40. There is nothing wrong with *those* stickers

I would cite that I have seen some moveable letter signs that were daff or mildly offensive (to me). "Guilt statements"??? I will have to think about that.

[LanternWaste]

48. Or, were it a Democratic bumper sticker...

"I would think that shoving your religion in my face at a stop light would qualify someone as being super ego obnoxious folks."

Or, were it a Democratic bumper sticker we could then accuse them of shoving their politics in our face and qualify them as super ego obnoxious...?

[Mountainman]

54. Yes, I really think so. Doesn't matter what the message is.

[LanternWaste]

84. So, if I'm reading your post correctly...

So, if I'm reading your post correctly, a bumper sticker on one's car is actually "throwing your politics/religion in my face"?


Does that apply to what's on a person's clothing (t-shirt for example) also? If not, what's the precise and relevant difference?

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Could you rephrase that in English?

WTF does "super ego obnoxious folks" mean? Is that a reference to the super-ego? Or did you just drop "ego" into "super obnoxious" because you thought it sounded intelligent?

[Kolesar]

44. Some believers really drive themselves to achieve and to further develop their intellects

That is definitely a good thing. I am too skeptical and pessimistic, myself.

[Goblinmonger]

105. Bet you feel stupid for not claiming a higher IQ

like the guy downthread. 170--you pale in comparison to the wizard below. What are the odds that people 6 or so standard deviations from the norm are both in your household? Not to mention the 3-4 deviations of the rest. You guys should start a genius traveling show.

[Indenturedebtor]

3. How does one's ability to think and reason have anything to do with faith?

I mean seriously if one is naturally inclined to be able to smell bullshit, why should that interfere with blind faith? :sarcasm:

[Kolesar]

34. UFOs, lucky numbers, WMDs...

[Indenturedebtor]

88. In much the same vein that accomplished scientists reconcile their "faith"

Twist and turn enough and you can make damn near anything make sense. That's why they came up with a method for gathering and analysing data. Without the method, a nimble mind can just twist and turn to reach the desired conclusion more nimbly.

But the correlation between being able to fend off your emotional urges to twist and turn your reason till you find the desired result... makes sense. Sorry bad grammar and phrasing but you know what I mean.

[timtom]

114. Faith and reason are not correlative.

I'll bet you could use your stellar rhetorical style to convince Pascal that he was wrong.

[sellitman]

4. Makes sense to me.

But I bet the flamers will have a fit.

[Lex]

5. True in my observations.

nt

[kestrel91316]

6. No kidding. I picked up a serious clue about this when I read

Carl Sagan's Demon-Haunted World.

[lonestarnot]

8. So how do they explain Sir Isaac Newton? Was he just a freak of nature?

[Lex]

10. It's not an absolute.

Not 100% of highly intelligent people are atheists. That's not what the article says.

[Jim__]

15. Different time, different level of knowledge about nature and the universe.

Newton did not believe that gravity could hold the planets stable in their orbits. He thought that required the hand of god. No scientist believes that today.

[lonestarnot]

20. Then Einstein came along and how do they explain him?

[Lex]

26. Like this

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954) From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

[Jim__]

35. As in post 26. And, from one of his letter's

Here:

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this,"

[uberllama42]

81. Who gives a shit about Einstein?

If he believed in Big Foot, would we listen to Big Foot fans who waved that in our faces?

Einstein was bright, but he was not infallible. He believed the universe was eternal, but now we know that is not the case. His opinion cannot be used as evidence. That is an appeal to authority. Work that he did with evidence carries weight. If he made claims about the supernatural, they carry no more weight than similar claims made by any other person, because they would not be supported by evidence.

[varkam]

98. Einstein was not religious.

It is true that Einstein used the term "God", but he was not referring to a personal God such as the God of Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter). For his purposes, you could substitute the term "nature" and the meaning would've held the same for Einstein.

[Speck Tater]

9. Doh! Isn't that pretty self-evident.

Kind of like people with lower than average I.Q's more likely to vote Republican.

That's also a no-brainer.

[vharlow]

11. He's right in his observations, but......

that doesn't make the "intellectual elites" right in their conclusions. It's pretty easy to elevate oneself to such a high level that one thinks of oneself as being equal to the creator. I've seen and heard, read and argued with many who really do believe they are smart enough to have created themselves!

When it's all over, there will only be believers.

[Lex]

13. Don't believe in evolution, eh?

nt

[lonestarnot]

22. And because one could mix the two beliefs what then?

[Lex]

29. Since that specific poster referenced "the creator" I asked

about evolution.

People can "mix" the 2 "beliefs" (actually evolution isn't a "belief") as much as makes them happy and content.

[vharlow]

46. Not as a religion, no.

Unlike those who take "evolution" to the point of religious belief, I am reminded constantly it is the "theory" of evolution.

[Lex]

56. You are mixing lay usage of "theory" with scientific usage of "theory."

"In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time."

Such as Newton's theory of gravitation. Such as Darwin's theory of evolution.

[vharlow]

80. Two theories?

These don't compare .... You can drop an apple and watch it fall.

Adaptation is one thing....a person can follow that. I can believe that horses were once very short, and that humans grew taller and straighter, things like that. Each species can adapt to his environment.

But show me where one species changed to another.

[uberllama42]

90. Red herring

There are no defined inflection points at which one species definitively becomes another. Evolutionary theory does not claim that such dramatic transformations occur. Speciation occurs gradually by small steps over many generations. Transitions do not need to be captured in the fossil record (or observed in a laboratory) for evolution to be conclusively demonstrated.

If you are interested in the evidence for evolution and against creationism, see the following books as recommended by Daniel Dennett in his book Breaking the Spell:

http://www.amazon.com/Tower-Babel-Evidence-against-Creationism/dp/0262661659/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213299948&sr=8-2">Tower of Babel: The Case Against the New Creationism by Robert T. Pennock

http://www.amazon.com/Unintelligent-Design-Mark-Perakh/dp/1591020840/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213300111&sr=1-1">Unintelligent Design by Mark Perakh

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-0413892-7857663?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=God%2C+the+Devil%2C+and+Darwin&x=0&y=0">God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory by Niall Shanks

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Intelligent-Design-Fails-Creationism/dp/0813538726/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213300393&sr=1-1">Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Creationism-National-Academy-Sciences/dp/0309064066/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213300504&sr=1-1">Science and Creationism by the National Academy of Sciences

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Molecules-Ecosystems-Oxford-Biology/dp/0198515421/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213300591&sr=1-1">Evolution: Form Molecules to Ecosystems edited by Andres Moya and Enrique Font

http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Evolution-set-Mark-Pagel/dp/0195122003/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213300677&sr=1-2">Encyclopedia of Evolution edited by Mark Pagel (two volumes on sale for $70- a prime deal!)

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Biology-Teachers-HELLER-ORIANS/dp/0716778769/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213300788&sr=1-1">LIFE: The Science of Biology by Orians Heller and Hilles Sadava Purves

[Indenturedebtor]

92. Here you go Vharlow - question answered

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14094

Also see the fossil record, etc etc.

Now these E Coli can still breed with other E Coli, but over about 50,000 generations it would be as though humans could survive by eating rocks. Also they can go back and analyse the DNA of each successive generation of E Coli in the strain and watch the DNA change over time.

Evolution is a fact not a "theory". Calling it a "theory" in scientific terms means something pretty much totally different from laymans terms. It signifies that science is always open to new and better explanations for the data, but the data is pretty much incontrovertible. The only thing that remains incontrovertible about gravity for example, is how exactly it functions, not whether or not it exists.

[RaleighNCDUer]

118. So, do you think an eohippus could cross breed with any modern

equine?

No?

That makes it a DIFFERENT SPECIES.

[timtom]

116. Do you believe in evolution?

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. LOL.

Uh. Wait. You're SERIOUS?

[AzDar]

42. My 'creators' were my Mum and Dad. As for being a believer...I believe I'll have another Mojito.

:)

[smoogatz]

108. There's a belief system that works for me!

I believe I'll have a double.

[Mountainman]

43. Isn't saying "the Creator" elitist? I think it is. It supposes you have the truth and someone else

doesn't when all you really have is a belief system. I would call you an elitist.

[vharlow]

50. Well, the only true elite is the creator.

[AlCzervik]

64. and who might that be?

[uberllama42]

91. Chuck Norris.

Duh.

[AlCzervik]

59. you're fun.

and quite prolific on the internet.

[Lex]

65. "Halleluliah (sic) and Thanks to Freerepublic." (sick)

http://www.freerepublic.com/~vharlow/

[AlCzervik]

66. indeed, i looked her up on google after she said Al-Quaeda targeted puppies, it's been hella fun

watching.

[Lex]

74. Oh noes! Not the puppies!

:wtf: Oh my.

[Indenturedebtor]

94. Bwahahahah well done Mr. Watson well done n/t

[trotsky]

76. "When it's all over, there will only be believers."

Gotta love the religion of peace and love constantly having to use veiled or just outright threats.

[nebenaube]

86. oh I seriously doubt any believers will survive.

After all, they all want to rapture... which to my mind is nothing more than being vaporized by a nuke.

[librechik]

14. sigh. This reminds me of the years I tried to become a Christian

but I just couldn't find blind faith in miracles without the ol grey cells barging in and pointing out how foolish such a belief really is. Harshed my buzz every time.

I still have a sentimental attachment to the teachings of Jesus. Good stuff.

[elocs]

28. I am in absolute agreement with you about the teachings of Jesus.

It's too bad that so many Christians today do not follow them. I think if Jesus were walking our streets today most Christians would probably not recognize him and just consider him to be a homeless man with long hair and a beard spouting some Liberal nonsense about helping the poor.

[Mountainman]

47. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians"

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi

[Wizard777]

16. HELLO! 220 here. There is a God and Physics tends to prove that.

I guess it's all in how you look at it.

[Indenturedebtor]

21. How does physics "prove" a belief in god? n/t

[Wizard777]

52. It proves His existence. At least in the alchemical interpretations of what constitutes God.

Such as the Prime Muematum or Primo Vere. That first movement or first sign of life that created existence. That is God. Some would call the big bang God. But that is actually His process of creation. God predates that. He's more of the Primordial Ooze that preexisted the big bang. He is Pure Energy and therefore can assume any form. This also why He is present in all things. Everything is made of energy. Immortality is also proven. Once energy is created it can not be destroyed. Only changed. Etc. Etc.

[Beetwasher]

57. Physics Proves This?

:rofl:

Yeah, sure it does. As long as you redefine the words "physics", "proves", "god" & "exists" to mean what ever you want them to.

[cbc5g]

58. Wow.... LoLz

Immortality is proven because of law of conservation of matter? ROFL. Man you got me laughing this afternoon.

[Wizard777]

71. Extend it infinitely. You'll see.

[Silent3]

156. Turtles all the way down!

[Random_Australian]

174. Been there, done that, realised what a null hypothesis was, stopped.

You are overextending yourself by taking it from 1 to n.

[EOTE]

61. Ahhh, so god is who/whatever you want it to be?

Then yes, I'll give you that. If god is a meaningless construct brought about as there needing to be a cause for everything, then yes, god exists. What that means though, is likely next to nothing.

[cbc5g]

70. And you know that this God is a male, how?

:popcorn:

[Jim__]

79. The first movement of what?

Did matter exist before movement? Where did what ever first moved come from?

[Indenturedebtor]

82. The idea that the universe is "one" doesn't "prove" anything other than

That the universe is one. Just because there is a "cause" to everything doesn't prove that that "cause" has to be a sentient being.

Personally I like to entertain such notions, and when I go to Synagogue I like to substitute the "Adonai" in my own head for just such an idea of the majesty of nature, etc, as you describe it. But that doesn't prove anything other than the fact that I worship nature and anthropormorphise it in my own head.

Further just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean that we have to substitute "God" for that which is unknown. That's one of the great illogical ideas that grips so many of the faithful.

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. Actually, that is exactly what we do -

God is the unknown factor in any equation. And the more our scientific knowledge grown, the fewer times we have to plug 'god' into the equation. That is why the most learned tend to believe the least - it is not a factor in their equations.

A poster above claimed that we 'know' that the universe is not eternal, as opposed to Einstein's contention. But we really 'know' no such thing - it is strongly suggested by observation and mathmatics, but there is no way we could know it. Nobody can prove that the singularity that birthed the big bang was not the product of a universal collapse that preceeded the big bang when a prior universe existed.

The human brain is not yet developed enough to really comprehend eternity - that's why we have 'god' plugged into that, and similar, equations. But we have long since outgrown, and outlearned, the need to plug god into thunderstorms and floods and plagues. But of course, the religionists still insist on blaming Katrina on God's Wrath.

Oh well.

[Occam Bandage]

124. Harry, I was kinda hoping you knew more physics than a high school junior.

[John Gauger]

128. Thank you for a good laugh. nt

[Random_Australian]

171. That does indeed prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you aren't very good at physics.

A) Time before the big bang
B) The notion that if the energy stored in us keeps going, so do we.
C) The notion of energy bieng 'pure' or 'impure'


Would be a good start, as I don't wish to nitpick.

[cbc5g]

Lol, that has got to be a joke.

[SidDithers]

32. 220 what? SAT score?...nt

Sid

[Wizard777]

53. No IQ. I'm considered to be a theoretical genius.

I guess that makes me a legend in my own mind. :rofl:

[greyl]

83. You disguise it well. nt

[trotsky]

96. *SNORT*

:spray:

[Occam Bandage]

123. You reached way, way too high, buddy. When you lie, make it believable.

140 would have been very impressive. 220 is a joke. What you claimed is like saying, "I have a sixteen-inch-long penis." It's just not very likely.

[Goblinmonger]

126. I know

I mean, seriously, who has a penis THAT small. Sheesh.

[Dorian Gray]

153. Okay...

made me snerf water out my nose. Ouch!

[Dorian Gray]

152. No joke...

my husband's friend, in all serious one night, confessed to my husband that he had a 22 inch schlong.

I believe that as much as I believe that any poster here has a 220 IQ.

[eShirl]

33. please elaborate

[Wizard777]

55. See above

[Forkboy]

37. ....

:popcorn:

[Systematic Chaos]

68. 220? Just EIGHT measly standard deviations above the mean?

The probability of a hit that far out into the tail of the z distribution is a massive .0000000000000006221 or one person in 1,607,458,607,940,845!

That shit just grows on trees!

Pfffft.

Child's play!

:freak:

Edit for link to reference. Check bottom table at 8 standard deviations and convert out of scientific notation:
http://www.math.unb.ca/~knight/utility/NormTble.htm

[varkam]

99. Thanks for that.

I was thinking that 220 was a teeny bit high. :hi:

[trotsky]

100. ...

[Goblinmonger]

103. You are saying you have an IQ of 220?

Really. That must put you in about the 99.99999999999999% of the population. Surely we must have heard of you. Are you Marilyn vos Savant?

[RaleighNCDUer]

160. IIRC, Marilyn vos Savant clocks in at 190. nt

[Random_Australian]

172. No, I thought it was 218 - the highest ever recorded.

And the internets say Einstein was at 186 and Hawking at about 200+.

Of course, Marilyn vos Savant was very famous for being ludicrously good at taking IQ tests, and those three scores alone are basically impossible. (I have a feeling the internets were lying)

Well, I'll accept that maybe someone had an IQ of 186. But I have a feeling that the Hawking was either given an unrepresentative score or that he is freaking good at taking tests.


Ah wait, no I read more, that's actually using an incorrect version of the IQ test - the real one does not allow for scores over 200, and when converting from the one that does allow scores over 200, the IQ will be lowered.

Makes sense, though. IQ only correlates with g, so there is no point in saying someone's IQ is above 200. (And no point in quantifying it when it is that high)

That would also be why Hawking received a 200+ or 'just over 200' rather than a score.

[Occam Bandage]

183. Depends on the test used. Different dests score differently.

[Random_Australian]

185. Yeah, (after posting) I kinda realised that. n/t

[John Gauger]

131. Good job.

[Dorian Gray]

151. 220

As in IQ?

[TechBear_Seattle]

179. According to Mensa, the bottom margin of the top two percent is 132

Of course, different tests result in different scores; the 132 is the minimum score for Mensa membership using the Stanford Binet test. With the intelligence you claim, certainly you are a member and will be listed in the Mensa's published directory.

A full list is available at American Mensa's http://www.us.mensa.org/Content/AML/NavigationMenu/Join/SubmitTestScores/QualifyingTestScores/QualifyingScores.htm">qualifying test scores page.

[Occam Bandage]

182. Only if he's applied for membership and paid dues.

[TechBear_Seattle]

184. He seems awfully proud of his score; certainly, he has a card to prove it

I would be very surprised to find that (assuming he is telling the truth) he is not a member of a high IQ society. If not Mensa then some other one.

[elocs]

18. Ahh, reading comprehension. What a wonderful thing.

The article says "less likely", it does not say that there are no people with higher IQs who believe in God.

[eShirl]

36. but that's what makes this thread so entertaining ;)

[Lex]

38. LOL--I know. Some are definitely proving the point.

nt

[undeterred]

75. Its a flamebait topic.

And I'm glad it was moved out GD.

[whistle]

19. What God?

[Random_Australian]

148. That one over there!

No wait, now he's hiding behind the bushes again. Shy little so-and-so.

Or more seriously, I don't think they checked in this study. I do remember some studies that did look at specific religion, but they looked at acheivement in science rather than IQ (Atheists statistically won again, with Jews second, I think).

[ORDagnabbit]

23. Its cause we know how to read and avoid scams. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

24. My experience doesn't bear this out

I do suspect, however, that higher intelligence (and do we really know how accurately IQ tests measure that anyway?) may correlate to more nuanced understanding of religious belief and theology.

[LanternWaste]

164. I absolutely agree.

"...may correlate to more nuanced understanding of religious belief and theology."

I absolutely agree. I tend to think the greater the smarts, the greater the introspection. The greater the introspection, the greater the acceptance of what may at first glance seem to be the impossible.

The only direct correlation between intelligence and action I myself have ever witnessed is this: The greater the intelligence, the more often that person says "I don't know..."

(But you're from Jersey, so what do you know...? :evilgrin: )

[Mountainman]

25. This gets my DUH! award. Hello! believe in superstitions anyone!

[cbc5g]

30. Depends on reasoning, critical thinking skills and upbringing

You can have a high IQ person that still doesn't "get it". They may have an emotional response that clouds their intelligent thinking when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe. We are still a species that reacts more to appeals on emotion instead of intellect.

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. Some of us aspire to be Vulcans; others aspire to be Klingons,

If I can be forgiven a "Star Trek" analogy.

[pork medley]

39. i'm sure faith or lack thereof has nothing to do w/ standard of living

and that any rise/drop in avg. IQ has nothing to do w/ standard of living either

[Indenturedebtor]

85. Actually IQ is highly correlated with a number of things

Such as wealth, good looks, fewer genetic diseases, lower divorce rate, etc. It's kind of ugly to think about, but unfortunately all people weren't created equal. They were however created with equal rights, and we should do everything we can to make sure that everyone gets a good fair shot at life! So don't anyone dare say I'm espousing Eugenics in some backdoor way.

[MedleyMisty]

169. I think the wealth thing is more nurture than nature

People try to claim that wealth and poverty are the result of the IQ difference between the two groups, but I think it's more of an outcome of the differences in nurturing. I mean, really, who's going to do better on an IQ test regardless of genetics - someone who didn't get enough to eat as a kid and never had any books around and grew up in a violent neighborhood or someone who had the best of health care and all the educational resources money could buy and safety and security?

And of course because people don't see it that way programs for gifted kids get called "elitist" and thrown out and it's the poor smart kids who don't have access to any resources outside of their local public school who suffer.

Don't even get me started on people using IQ as an excuse for racism or sexism - it's like, didn't they look at some basic demographic charts about income inequality and race and gender and just think for a few minutes?

But then mostly it's rich white men who use IQ to excuse institutional prejudice, and I guess that's why they see the differences in IQ between privileged and underprivileged groups as the cause of inequality rather than as a result. It certainly does help perpetuate things and may be part of the cause after a few generations, but it's definitely more result than cause.

I found a study showing that the tax bracket your parents were in predicted your future financial success a lot more than IQ did - I'll try to find the link again.

Wait----

Is this why people have such a hangup about IQ? Because they've "been taught to believe" (god, I hate that phrase) that IQ really does equal your personal worth?

I have to admit I'd never heard of a correlation with good looks - wait, did I miss the invisible sarcasm tag?

[undeterred]

41. Gee, no bias there at all.

:sarcasm:

[Goblinmonger]

130. Please elaborate. n/t

[sshan2525]

49. Well, good for me......

Apparently, I'm not as stupid as I thought....LOL

[cbc5g]

51. What proof exists that there is only one God or many Gods or no Gods at all?

If you had three Earth's/universes similar to ours, one made by one God, one made by many Gods, and one formed by no Gods...could you tell the difference? And if you say that the universe can't just come out of nowhere...then where does God or the Gods come from?


Belief in anything without clear evidence backing it up is foolish.


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs." - Carl Sagan

[undeterred]

62. Right, just look at Thom Hartmann.

He's a Christian.

[Lex]

72. See Post #18.

Might be a helpful clarification there.

[malaise]

63. Duh!!!!!

Where there is more rational thinking, there is always less superstition

[snooper2]

67. Well no shit...

:eyes:



GOBAMA

[Lifetimedem]

69. I do not believe that

We are a family of above average IQ's, our children are professionals, primarily in the sciences and math ( we do have a social worker and history major).

All of us number ourselves as believers.

My church is populated with highly educated professionals, that come weekly to worship.

I would be interesting in his method and sampling.


However one of the wonderful things about God is, one does not need to be an intellect to read and understand His words.

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know , because they are spiritually discerned.

[Lex]

73. I believe the article said "less likely" -- not "in all instances."

nt

[cbc5g]

78. One does not need to be an intellectual to understand...

That something written 2000 years ago by people who thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe is pure bullshit. Remember, this was a time when rulers were trying to come up with ways to keep the ignorant masses in line, or to trick them into becoming willful participants in bloody conquests. The fear and guilt trips kept people in line. The original christian text was changed MANY times. Hell wasn't even originally in the scriptures until later added to scare people into joining for fear of the fiery pits of darkness and death.

To gain a sense of community, church is great.

To gain a sense of the universe, watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

[LanternWaste]

165. Much like the writing's of Plato and Aristotle

"That something written 2000 years ago by people who thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe is pure bullshit"

Much like the writing's of Plato and Aristotle are "pure bullshit"? Or would you like to re-qualify your statement so that it avoids these (likely) unintended targets of yours...

[enki23]

77. cue the people claiming IQ scores well above 150

it never fails. the internets are just full of super-geniuses. this in spite of the fact that reliable IQ tests in the really real world don't give out meaningful scores (at least for adults) above 150-155 or so. and that only rarely, in practice.

just don't do it. people with any real experience with valid IQ testing are going to laugh at you. my partner does neuropsych evals for a living, and she's laughing at you right now.

in any case, i'd be surprised if it didn't show a significant correlation. how strongly correlated would be a more valid question. remember, all, that we live in a society where religiosity is the default. the great majority of us are trained in it from childhood. you don't have to be smart to find a religion. to leave it behind, however, very often requires effort, and curiosity. above-average intelligence is certainly not sufficient condition to abandon belief in god, but it's hard to imagine it wouldn't be close to a necessary one. if we lived in a very non-religious society, where religiosity was actively discouraged, you very well might well find the opposite result. i say that as an atheist, btw.

[Indenturedebtor]

87. Seriously though

Aren't people with 140 and up something like 1% of the population? Yet millions claim to be "Something like 540 and stuff... um yah momma sez I'm smart." :eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

93. I think it's those "free on-line IQ tests."

the ones that ask the same half dozen questions over and over, tell everybody they have an IQ of 145, and can give an even more accurate reading if they just type in their credit card number.

You'd think anybody with an IQ over 85 or so wouldn't fall for that shit.

[Indenturedebtor]

95. I've taken a couple and they gave me the same scores as in childhool/adolescence

I was very poorly behaved so I went to see some shrinks etc.

But yeah most of them are probably crap, and for that matter IQ is one statistic. It is correlated with some positive attributes but certainly doesn't tell the whole story about intellectual ability, creative ability, funcionality, etc.

It's like saying that the big guy always wins the fight. Not so not so ;)

[moggie]

154. In my experience, highly intelligent people rarely tell you their IQ

They don't need to (whether or not they believe in measurable IQ). To those claiming a sky-high IQ, I'd say: don't tell me how intelligent you are, demonstrate it!

[cosmik debris]

89. People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in IQ tests n/t

[greyl]

97. Funny. nt

[varkam]

101. I find it oddly ironic...

that several here are claiming high IQs as a means to disprove the study in question, but fail to appreciate the nature of correlation...

[enki23]

102. i guess they're a bit intellectually lazy for ultra-geniuses

;)

[heidler1]

115. I noticed that too.

[Random_Australian]

122. Shush! I'm dying here. This thread is A-grade freaking hilarious.

With my ultimate power of IQ one-friggin-billion, I know that flying space monkeys are elitist God! and that makes statistics wrong.

'Linear regression' is for morons without my wu-shu conclusion-leaping powers! Logic-defying bounds - too slow Mr. Relevant Argument, you've been defeated by my Irrelevant-Claim-fu!

This thread is like slapstick comedy in debate form.

The Three Stooges: now with IQ 400..... well, it might be 400. :rofl:


Ok, I am being very mean. But this stuff cracks me up.

[heidler1]

104. "Birds of a feather flock together." IMO is true. If Atheists can lay claim to the peak of the IQ

curve it would appear to be a win, but there are problems with this win. This peak appears to also have the elitists, the liberals, the financially successful, the Libertarians, the Randoids, and others. In many ways not of like feathers.

[Goblinmonger]

106. Well, I have an IQ of 294

so beat that!

[Evoman]

107. My sister scored 294...her nickname in our family is dimbulb.

294 is a peon score.

[Goblinmonger]

132. Two problems with your score

1. Canadian test. I can't remember the exchange rate to the American test, but it doesn't look good for you.

2. You're latino. They probably told you that number just to make you feel good thinking you would just go on to be a farm worker in Manitoba.

[Evoman]

136. Actually, if I remember correctly, Canadian IQ is worth more at the moment that American.

1.1 : 1.0 ratio of Canadian: American.

Being latino has nothing do with IQ. All it means is that your wife will be enjoying both a higher IQ and a better lover when I sleep with her.

[moggie]

155. Don't you find a high IQ a hindrance in Canada?

I'd expect it to be a serious impediment to enjoying hockey.

[Evoman]

161. Of course. Which is why I'm only one of a small elite select that can't stand watching hockey.

Speaking of intelligence, how is the soccer hooliganism thing going?

[moggie]

168. Oh, I had to give that up

It's hard to get along with other football hooligans when you have an IQ of 220. I mean, most of those guys don't even agree that, on a paracompact Hausdorff space, every open cover admits a partition of unity subordinate to the cover! Can you believe it? Barbarians.

[charlie]

109. Mine's at least triple that

We ARE talking about Ignorance Quotient, right?

High as it is, I'm considered the pinhead of the bunch. Unfortunately, I'm the first in my family who could outthink a plate of beans.

[Evoman]

112. You lie. Nobody can outhink a plate of beans. Nobody.

[Random_Australian]

141. I once saw a man do it on teevee! His name was John Edwerds.

He even out-thought two plates of beans simultaneously with his arms tied behind his back!

So there!

[Evoman]

145. Which John Edwards? "The Hair" or "The Psychic"?

It doesn't matter......your a fucking liar. A liar and a fraud, and your John Edwards is a fake. NOBODY can outhink a plate of beans, let alone TWO plates of beans.

No man has an IQ that high.

I once....ONCE....led myself to believe that I had out-thought a plate of beans. But it turns out that instead, I hate eaten them and then lit the gas they caused. What I lost in hair, I gained in humility. The plate of beans had won.

[Random_Australian]

147. True, a plate of beans was better at chess than me. But I beat them at kickboxing.

:)

[cosmik debris]

110. My IQ requires scientific notation. n/t

[Evoman]

111. It sure does.

2.5 x 10^-50

[cosmik debris]

119. THAT'S IT!

You're off my Christmas card list.

[trotsky]

125. LMAO

:rofl:

Beautiful. Simply beautiful.

[Random_Australian]

121. Hah! Do you know why they invented graham's number?

To measure my IQ!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number

:rofl:

[Silent3]

159. Now, think about a typical fundamentalist Christian view of an afterlife...

...and being alive for a Graham's Number of years.

And you'd keep on living long enough to look back at your first G years in heaven as brief episode in your afterlife.

To me, that sounds terrifying, not reassuring, even if I imagine a "heavenly" existence.

And then to think if you weren't a good boy or good girl who Believed the right way, and you were tortured for that entire time, with all of eternity left to go waiting in front of you, by a supposedly "loving" and "merciful" God.

What's more surprising to me than people believing in such a God is believing in that God and refusing to recognize the absolute monstrosity of what they've chosen to believe in.

[knitter4democracy]

117. So, what's the corollary?

People with lower IQs are more likely to believe in God? People who believe in God are more likely to be average?

Also, let's completely ignore the fact that many in psychology dismiss the IQ test out of hand entirely nowadays and point to multitude problems with the test itself. The fact that IQs have been rising is quite problematic, and trying to tie the rise in IQ across the board to a lessening of the practice of faith (when polls show actual faith to be quite static) is a specious argument.

[Random_Australian]

173. Eh? And last I looked, psych says that there are indeed a statistical measure

of intelligence (as much as it exists, I think we all know about that fricking controversy).

But yeah, it correlates to intelligence (some of the time :)) so it is reasonable to use it in this context, without corollary.

Without anything much, actually. It's just a correlation, and that makes it basically meaningless. And what's more, a change in the IQ score just means that the test needs recalibrating. Changes of mean IQ over time (unless you want to be clever) are not meaningful in themselves.

[knitter4democracy]

177. There's the problem, though: if the test itself is questionable . . .

Why the heck should we care about some correlation that doesn't take other factors into account?

IQ rates are going up, and so are literacy rates around the world. That means reading makes you smarter! IQ means are rising, and more people around the world are eating the Western diet. That means the Western diet makes you smarter! See, I could tack anything onto that--any trend that mirrors the IQ means trend could have some correlation, and that means that this so-called study is meaningless.

When polls show a fairly static number in people who profess faith in some higher power/Being/whatever, when the study doesn't seem to take into account the issues with the IQ test, and when it's just a correlation that can be made with almost anything else, I wonder why anyone here would believe in the study.

[Random_Australian]

178. Ah, right, sorry. I assumed it was the same as the old ones, that showed in a single

cohort at a given time the same correlation.

This test is indeed not meaningful, agreed.

[varkam]

180. Which is one of the reasons that IQ tests are revised regularly.

It is, indeed, fact that IQ scores are going up. To correct for that, tests are re-normed every few years or so. I believe a new Wechsler series has just come out (I could be wrong, though).

[knitter4democracy]

181. Even still, shouldn't that make us question the test?

I took it for a parental custody battle in high school, and I was shocked at how crazy it was. The general info section was easier than our Quiz Bowl questions, so that part was easy, but what if a teen hadn't studied all that stuff yet? Then, the other tests were such that, if you practiced them, you'd do better. How is that a test of intelligence? It's smart to practice them? I've questioned that test ever since.

[varkam]

186. Those are valid concerns.

The general info section was easier than our Quiz Bowl questions, so that part was easy, but what if a teen hadn't studied all that stuff yet?

Well, the tests are age appropriate - or at least are supposed to be. The way that the data is scored and interpreted also factors in. But just as IQ tests are just one piece of data, each section of the test is likewise just one piece of data. IOW, if someone screws up on one section of the test it isn't the end-all-be-all of the results. For example, if you bomb on the general info section but are a savant when it comes to the other sections...well, that would raise some serious questions. I guess what I'm trying to say is that an IQ test is a tool and, like all tools, the utility of it depends on the skill of the individual that is wielding that tool.

Then, the other tests were such that, if you practiced them, you'd do better. How is that a test of intelligence? It's smart to practice them?

That is true of all tests. For example, I recently took the LSAT twice. As expected, I performed better on the second administration than I did on the first due to a variety of factors - not the least of which being increased familiarity with the testing format.

Testers are supposed to ascertain whether or not the person they are testing has ever taken an IQ test in the past few years and, if so, are supposed to make sure that it is not the test they are about to be administering (for precisely the reasons you laid out). If they have, then there are other tests that can be administered to get to the same result. For example, instead of giving a WISC, give a Stanford Binet, etc.

[knitter4democracy]

187. Maybe our psych wasn't that good at it, then.

He gave the exact same test to all of us (Mom, Dad, Stepmom, me), since he apparently didn't have an age-appropriate one for me. It was just part of the massive testing he put us all through as part of a court-ordered psych eval--and then he mixed up my stepmom and my mom in his files somehow. He was a complete dink, and I had little respect for him or any of his tests by the end of the process.

Still, it sounds like it takes quite a bit of training to administer the test properly. If that's the case, how did the study take that into account?

[varkam]

189. IIRC, the Stanford Binet...

can be used on all ages in that it contains questions for all age ranges.

It sounds like he might of been a bit incompetent and/or overworked, mixing up files like that.

It does take a bit of training to be able to do it right, but nothing too terribly intense. For me it was part of a semester-long graduate program in intelligence testing.

As far as this study goes, it's hard to say because they don't seem to go over the methodology very much. Assuming that they were all similarly trained professionals who administered the tests, then we'd be kosher on that front (though that's a big assumption).

[Zebedeo]

127. Hey, I have an idea!

You should call yourselves "Brights" to demonstrate to yourselves and others that you are "brighter" than they are.

. . .


Oh, wait, I'm sorry, but it's already been done.

[charlie]

137. I have a better one!

We should be Born Again to demonstrate to others how much more pure and free of ethical taint we are.

...

Oh, wait, that ain't us at all. And it's already been done.

We've definitely gotta look into the Better Living Through Better Branding angle, though. Fundies have already proven you can get a lot of good mileage out of being brazenly smug.

[Zebedeo]

138. Washed in the blood

not perfect, just forgiven.

[charlie]

139. Your karma ran over my dogma

Raised in the school of hard knocks.

I can do bumpersticker sloganeering too. I'm a fast learner!

[Evoman]

140. IF you can read this, you're too damn close.

:rofl:

[charlie]

142. My other car is a Mercedes

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me... aw, fuck it.

Let's just call ourselves Born Again, maybe we can dilute the brand with our pollution. If you can't lick 'em... cripes, there I go again!

[Zebedeo]

143. Read it;

learn it; live it.

OK, that's not a bumper sticker; it's a line out of Fast Times at Ridgemont High. ;)

How about this one:

"If you can read this, thank a teacher.

If you can read this in English, thank a soldier."

[charlie]

144. One that made me laugh

It's cruel, but I'm a morally deficient rat bastard.

Old MacDonald had dyslexia,
O-I-O-I-EEEEE!

[Zebedeo]

146. Dyslexics of the world

UNTIE!

(Apologies to dyslexic DUers)

[Random_Australian]

149. Or the terrible joke about the insomniac agnostic dyslexic,

who lay awake at night wondering if there really was a Dog.

[John Gauger]

162. That's right Zeb.

Our solders are fighting and dying to defend the English language.

Dulce et decorum est pro lingua Anglica mori.

[Zebedeo]

166. You don't understand the bumper sticker

I'll explain. If it weren't for soldiers defending us, we would be speaking German, Japanese or some other language, because people from countries that speak those languages would have invaded. Get it now?

[charlie]

167. No. Not even.

We don't reprise other WWII anachronisms like Loose Lips Sink Ships, they don't have bearing on situations today. If you could find somebody who really fears we could all be speaking Arabic, then Thank a Soldier would have relevance. It's Jingoism, in support of Dubya's mindless adventure. Nothing more.

[John Gauger]

176. Actually, I think it's more aimed towards Spanish speakers.

You know, in the large portion of this country that was wrested at gunpoint from the Mexicans, the statement that the English language is spoken because of soldiers is quite correct. Somehow, I'm not thankful, though.

[John Gauger]

175. Neither the Japanese nor the Germans ever attempted to invade the United States.

The Japanese attacked us in order to end the US oil embargo against their imperial adventure. The Germans fought us because we declared war on them. Even if they had attempted to take over the country, why is it their language what we are worried about? Is that really all we stood to loose to the Fascists, our language?

Regardless of what it's referring to, it still holds up the English language as something worth dying for. And considering the large number of anti-Spanish bumper stickers, I think it's much more likely that the sticker is a racist jab at Spanish-speakers, whatever it's original intent was.

On any level, it doesn't make much sense. When was the last time the United States was invaded by a foreign power with the aim of overthrowing our regime?

[Zebedeo]

188. The Axis powers

would have certainly invaded if the U.S. had no soldiers. World domination was their ambition, and it would have included conquering the U.S. with all its natural resources, industrial capacity, etc.

The sticker does not suggest that the English language is something worth dying for. It suggests that freedom is something worth dying for. The obvious implication of being forced to speak another nation's language is that we would be under the thumb of that other nation.

As for your last point -- "When was the last time the United States was invaded by a foreign power with the aim of overthrowing our regime?" -- the obvious response is that the U.S. has not been invaded in quite a long time, because for quite a long time, we have had soldiers.

[John Gauger]

129. Who gives a shit about IQ?

It's a meaningless number.

[Goblinmonger]

133. You're just jealous

because you don't have an IQ in the 200s like me and the other guy upthread.

[John Gauger]

134. Yeah, but I do have a sixteen inch dick.

In truth, I declined to see the results of the IQ test my high school gave me, because I felt the whole concept was masturbatory. Speaking of which, I also can't say I've ever measured my dick either...

I guess since neither one is ever going to be quite what I want it to be, what's the use?

[uberllama42]

135. Man, eight fucking standard deviations

That was either really ballsy or embarrassingly ignorant.

[moggie]

150. You know Richard Lynn's history?

He's cited favourably in the infamous The Bell Curve. One quote from wikipedia:

Lynn's psychometric studies were cited in the 1994 book The Bell Curve and were criticized as part of the controversy surrounding that book. His article, "Skin color and intelligence in African Americans," 2002 Population and Environment, concludes that lightness of skin color in African-Americans is positively correlated with IQ, which he claims derives from the higher proportion of Caucasian admixture.

He's also written in favour of eugenics. As a progressive, I'd be very wary of this guy's output.

[Silent3]

158. The important thing is that people be judged as individuals, however...

...there's interesting and sometimes useful knowledge to be gained in looking at statistical distributions of all sort of human traits, and it worries me when political correctness, not science, determines which results are acceptable, and even which questions are allowed to be asked in the first place.

There's been plenty of very bad science done to support racist and sexist ideas, and terrible things down in the name of eugenics. That doesn't mean, however, that it's absolutely impossible for some statistical realities to exist that don't fit it neatly with our Democratic sensibilities.

I don't really know anything about the quality of Richard Lynn's work, but what I'd ask is this:

1) Do you think it's absolutely impossible that there might be a real correlation between skin color, or other "racial" traits, and IQ? (Yes, I'm aware that the notion of "race" is not well defined scientifically.)
2) If it is possible, is it wrong to ask these question anyway?

One big problem with these kinds of questions, which is amply demonstrated in this thread, is that so many people seem to have terribly low IQs when it comes to handling the statistical information we might receive as answers.

Let's say a study showed that brown-eyed people had, on average, higher IQs than blue eyed people. The first thing you'd hear is people shouting, with bitterness, anger, and resentment, about all the really smart blue-eyed people they know.

Well, duh!

Of course no scientific study would have originally said that ALL brown eyed people are smarter than ALL blue eyed people, but there's a painfully predictable, extremely binary distortion that occurs with this sort of thing. If such ridiculous distortions don't start with idiotic press coverage of scientific statistics, the "man in the street" will soon apply is own dully binary thinking to crush all subtlety out of the original information anyway.

[anonymous171]

163. I knew it. The way his use of the word "intellectual elite" made me think of eugenics.

[regularguy]

157. I don't believe in IQ......nt

[MedleyMisty]

170. was musing more about the idea that IQ means wealth and my editing period expired

Wait----

Is this why people have such a hangup about IQ? Because they've "been taught to believe" (god, I hate that phrase) that IQ really does equal your personal worth? Because (urghh on so many counts) they've been taught that your ability to accumulate crap and exploit others is your personal worth and people without a lot of crap aren't worth as much and that IQ, not where you start out on the economic food chain, is responsible for how much crap you have?

No wonder I have so much trouble communicating and come across as a lot more arrogant and boasting than I think I am. I mean, yeah, I'll talk about my scores and academic achievements and how the summary of the results of my fifth grade IQ test said that I was working at college level and beyond then and had "the temperament and the abilities to go far with her life." Because I have a completely different frame of reference about that than everyone else - to me it's just part of my history and my identity and part of what makes me unique and explains stuff about me and my place in the world that I personally wondered about. I mean, I guess you could make a case that it is pretty vain of me to talk about it, but I do mention it only when it's relevant - on forums for gifted adults and in conversations on here where IQ and related stuff is part of the discussion. I don't think I've ever talked about it in real life.

And yeah - my family was working class and not really all that bad off and I had good nutrition and health care and books and absolutely wonderful parents - and when my father died when I had just turned seven my mother continued to be absolutely wonderful. Just didn't have any choices outside of age grade lockstep in public school (although I did get full scholarships to Duke's TIP program every summer) and no connections to get a good job. And a complete and total lack of interest in money and material stuff outside of food, shelter, clothing, books, computers, and a net connection. All that along with strong moral beliefs led to a lack of motivation to try for what a psychopathic society that's destroying itself calls success.

But everyone else is seeing my posts through their frame of reference, where IQ is material crap is personal worth.

Damn.