Religiosity And Intellgence Quotiants

[Amppax]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1304368819' post='2235930']
What about the SAT? Is there no measure of intelligence that is acceptable or palatable?
[/quote]

That is the problem, there really are flaws to just about every current measure of intelligence. Yes, IQ is the best that we have. Is it perfect? No! and that is really where some of us are finding problems with it

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1304368819' post='2235930']
What about the SAT? Is there no measure of intelligence that is acceptable or palatable?
[/quote]

I don't think there is. The SAT and ACT are better though, because one focuses more on English and reading comp where the other focuses more on sciences and detailed facts. Students can choose which to take, and can take them more than once, so they know which is better suited for them.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1304369028' post='2235934']English and reading comp where the other focuses more on sciences and detailed facts.
[/quote]
A vast knowledge of facts is not intelligence.

Edited May 2, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1304367670' post='2235919']Understanding that IQ testing doesn't cover all forms of intelligence is important. But even if we use another standard, such as the SAT we find the same.[/quote][quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304368988' post='2235933']That is the problem, there really are flaws to just about every current measure of intelligence. Yes, IQ is the best that we have. Is it perfect? No! and that is really where some of us are finding problems with it[/quote]I suspect you might be minimizing these studies, that consistently show a trend, because it's not convenient.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1304369494' post='2235937']
I suspect you might be minimizing these studies, that consistently show a trend, because it's not convenient.
[/quote]

I'm done with this. I've already said, i would probably agree with the basic premise (the average person who doesn't believes in God is smarter then the average person who does). But i just think that

1) there are other confounding factors that make this fact almost worthless and two

2) that IQ isn't the end all be all of intelligence, even if it is generally useful

Thats it.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1304369136' post='2235935']
A vast knowledge of facts is not intelligence.
[/quote]

Right. The point I was trying to make is that at least a student can best express their own take on intelligence. Originally, I did say that even the SAT is not an efficient way to measure intelligence, as are no current standardized tests.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304371163' post='2235949']I'm done with this.[/quote]Okay.[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304371163' post='2235949']I've already said, i would probably agree with the basic premise (the average person who doesn't believes in God is smarter then the average person who does).[/quote]That wasn't the premise, but alright.[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304371163' post='2235949']1) there are other confounding factors that make this fact almost worthless and two[/quote]Calling it worthless, no denial there.[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304371163' post='2235949']2) that IQ isn't the end all be all of intelligence, even if it is generally useful[/quote]Again, no one claimed it was, not even remotely.[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1304371163' post='2235949']Thats it.[/quote]Thank you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

a point or two isn't that significant, even if it's all true. so it does as the professor who did the story said... it establishes that those who are higher in intelligence are more skeptical, and those with lower often value certainty over all else, truth or not. this shows that the difference is not that significant.

an interesting question... i suppose i'd say my knee jerk response would be to say lower intelligence would be more prone to religious thought. and i think mr catholic cat agreed, and i'm sure many would. but, if the difference is so small... is it fair for us to think that our perception was ever accurate to begin with? not really, i'd have to think.
it'd seem we're being influence more by stereotypes, than what's true. cause there's surely many yokels and stupid atheists, etc too.

[Socrates]

While I had had the OP on ignore, as he is typically a troll, seeing as this thread has gone on for two pages, I thought I'd add my $.02. . . .


While I can't speak regarding the methodology, integrity, and accuracy of Nyborg and Lynn's study, I can say that many of the most intelligent, educated, and intellectual people I've known personally, as well as read, have been strongly believing, practicing orthodox Catholics, a number of them being of a "traditionalist" bent, and most of them politically and culturally conservative. (Of course, it does help to have been to an orthodox Catholic school.)
Many of them have high IQs, some at genius level, and some are converts from irreligion.

While I hate to tout my own braininess (as its really irrelevant to anything), lets just say I've scored high on IQ tests, as well as in my academic studies. I also attend the traditional Latin Mass at a very conservative FSSP parish, and most would classify my political, cultural, and religious beliefs as very conservative. And this is true for many much more intelligent than myself.

But my IQ or anybody else's is really completely irrelevant to any meaningful debate on religion, philosophy, or politics.

Touting studies allegedly proving higher average IQ scores for the irreligious and liberals is simply a slightly-more-sophisticated way of calling those who disagree with those views a buncha stoopid retards.
It is a lazy and sloppy method of avoiding actually having to even address the religious or political arguments themselves, and instead resorts to using statistical averages to dismiss those on the other side as dummies.

It's lazy, ad-hominem, and anything but intelligent.

And having a high IQ hardly proves one's views correct. There are plenty of people with high IQs and not a lick of basic common sense.


"Radtrads, fundamentalists, extremists, dogmatists" are rather ill-defined and derogatory labels, and labeling them all stupid is even less meaningful.
In my casual experience (for whatever it's worth), the irreligious and liberal tend to be intellectually-lazy idiots who prefer name-calling and smug condescension to rational thought, and tend to avoid serious intellectual inquiry at all, their minds being more occupied with such weighty matters as who they slept with/what porn they watched last night and what to get drunk/high/stoned on tonight.


Here's something somewhat related I came across lately, dealing with a study by Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute on the correlation of the factors of marriage, work ethic, and religion and economic class among American whites.
[url="http://blog.adw.org/2011/04/civilization-killers-on-the-decline-of-three-basic-cultural-indicators-and-what-it-means-for-america/"]Civilization Killers – On the Decline of Three Basic Cultural Indicators and What it Means for America By: Msgr. Charles Pope[/url]

Among Murray's findings:
"Although secularization has long been on the rise, it’s more pronounced in the working class. Among the upper middle class, 42 percent say they either don’t believe in God or don’t go to church. In the working class, it’s 61 percent. In other words, a majority of the upper middle class still has some religious commitment, while a majority of the working class does not."

While I know there's not a direct correlation between intelligence and economic class, these findings hardly paint a picture of the irreligious as a superior intellectual elite.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1304372622' post='2235967']
a point or two isn't that significant, even if it's all true. so it does as the professor who did the story said... it establishes that those who are higher in intelligence are more skeptical, and those with lower often value certainty over all else, truth or not. this shows that the difference is not that significant.

an interesting question... i suppose i'd say my knee jerk response would be to say lower intelligence would be more prone to religious thought. and i think mr catholic cat agreed, and i'm sure many would. but, if the difference is so small... is it fair for us to think that our perception was ever accurate to begin with? not really, i'd have to think.
it'd seem we're being influence more by stereotypes, than what's true. cause there's surely many yokels and stupid atheists, etc too.
[/quote]

and to clarify, what's im saying is that we shouldn't be able to perceive differences of a point or two. we could wonder if it might be the case, but that's it.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1304374928' post='2235974']
And having a high IQ hardly proves one's views correct. There are plenty of people with high IQs and not a lick of basic common sense.
[/quote]
I didn't see anyone arguing this point.

[Mr.Cat]

dairygirl4u2c, the thing that I observe is people trying to find an "enemy" to "fight", because with this information there is a perceived threat. Though I am not so sure why, but the instrument of attack in the discussion so far is one of the many shades of denial. Because its more than a few points difference, in every kind of testing imaginable the same trend is always observed. That is significant...

Personally, I find the consistent resentment fascinating. Less religiosity statistically tends to mean higher income, social support, education, and intelligence. Does this validate or invalidate Catholicism, no. Does this mean that religious people are stupid, no. So what is the fear? That is what I am digging for.

I guess the fear is that this implicates that there are unintelligent people making religion look bad, which... I hope we can agree is true. Which I hope we can agree it tends to be the extremes of religion that comes to mind when we think of examples. Perhaps this is an explanation, the critical thinking skills that allows a less religious person to question the burning of witches which was a common theme among many different christian cultures for centuries wasn't there for the more religious person... while the more religious person couldn't seem to grasp why someone would question the burning of a witch.

But maybe my example if a few centuries out of date. Again, the topic is not specifically addressed at Catholicism, many people when they see the word religion they always assume their own faith, and ONLY their own faith. Which is again, just another natural sociological force at work within religion. Which as I have learned since my doctor of sociology challenged me, Catholics and the Church are not exempt to such forces, in fact it doesn't seem different from any other religion in regard to the psychology and sociology of religion.

So it seems that less religious people are more exempt from these psychological and sociological forces, why? Is it merely intelligence or is it something more? It's always for an ideology people are ready to discriminate for... religious, political, or social. I wish I had more experience in neurobiology, I suspect that the development of the brain through life has the answers I truly seek. But for those interested in a more detailed scientific source, I recommend "[i]The Handbook of Religion and Health[/i]". Regretfully, this discussion stayed in square one...

A practical application would be the islamic states, the last truly religious states in the world by comparison... which we tend to see less income, social support, and education. Has anyone ever then speculated that might be why their people want sharia law and their religious leaders calling the important shots? The same could be said for the "Bible Belt" in the United States that tends to have less income, social support, and education... It seems to be a consistent trend. But that starts to put the human tendency of religiosity as detrimental... Which is my opinion. Its not faith or religion persay, its this tendency of religiosity.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1304374928' post='2235974']While I had had the OP on ignore, as he is typically a troll, seeing as this thread has gone on for two pages, I thought I'd add my $.02. . . .


While I can't speak regarding the methodology, integrity, and accuracy of Nyborg and Lynn's study, I can say that many of the most intelligent, educated, and intellectual people I've known personally, as well as read, have been strongly believing, practicing orthodox Catholics, a number of them being of a "traditionalist" bent, and most of them politically and culturally conservative. (Of course, it does help to have been to an orthodox Catholic school.)
Many of them have high IQs, some at genius level, and some are converts from irreligion.

While I hate to tout my own braininess (as its really irrelevant to anything), lets just say I've scored high on IQ tests, as well as in my academic studies. I also attend the traditional Latin Mass at a very conservative FSSP parish, and most would classify my political, cultural, and religious beliefs as very conservative. And this is true for many much more intelligent than myself.

But my IQ or anybody else's is really completely irrelevant to any meaningful debate on religion, philosophy, or politics.

Touting studies allegedly proving higher average IQ scores for the irreligious and liberals is simply a slightly-more-sophisticated way of calling those who disagree with those views a buncha stoopid retards.
It is a lazy and sloppy method of avoiding actually having to even address the religious or political arguments themselves, and instead resorts to using statistical averages to dismiss those on the other side as dummies.

It's lazy, ad-hominem, and anything but intelligent.

And having a high IQ hardly proves one's views correct. There are plenty of people with high IQs and not a lick of basic common sense.


"Radtrads, fundamentalists, extremists, dogmatists" are rather ill-defined and derogatory labels, and labeling them all stupid is even less meaningful.
In my casual experience (for whatever it's worth), the irreligious and liberal tend to be intellectually-lazy idiots who prefer name-calling and smug condescension to rational thought, and tend to avoid serious intellectual inquiry at all, their minds being more occupied with such weighty matters as who they slept with/what porn they watched last night and what to get drunk/high/stoned on tonight.


Here's something somewhat related I came across lately, dealing with a study by Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute on the correlation of the factors of marriage, work ethic, and religion and economic class among American whites.
[url="http://blog.adw.org/2011/04/civilization-killers-on-the-decline-of-three-basic-cultural-indicators-and-what-it-means-for-america/"]Civilization Killers – On the Decline of Three Basic Cultural Indicators and What it Means for America By: Msgr. Charles Pope[/url]

Among Murray's findings:
"Although secularization has long been on the rise, it’s more pronounced in the working class. Among the upper middle class, 42 percent say they either don’t believe in God or don’t go to church. In the working class, it’s 61 percent. In other words, a majority of the upper middle class still has some religious commitment, while a majority of the working class does not."

While I know there's not a direct correlation between intelligence and economic class, these findings hardly paint a picture of the irreligious as a superior intellectual elite.[/quote]I can always count on you for name-calling and personal attacks... Thank you. But I wish you continued to avoid me, as I fear you're sincere attempts at discussion comes across as laughable mockery.[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1304376142' post='2235983']I didn't see anyone arguing this point.[/quote]Me either.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1304365934' post='2235887']
Are you sure you are in a postion to judge intelligence?
[/quote]

If that wasn't outright intended to be insulting, then you demonstrated a severe lack of prudence. You've got a bit of nerve to tell him "don't attack me again" after making a statement like that.

~Sternhauser

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1304376142' post='2235983']
I didn't see anyone arguing this point.
[/quote]

not to mention the irrelevance of inserting that he has a high IQ.
(phatmass is full of such folks, nothin special there. but props for that