Can Of Worms Status: Opened; Liberalism & Atheism Linked to Higher IQs

liah

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that."

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=C2

Thoughts?

OutlawPete

Sounds about right.

biko

I'm atheist, and one of the smartest people I know.

minidazzler

Not surprized.

WIZE

I see dead people

Ostrom

Omitting correlated characteristics with greater effect sizes until the final report...?

SV

minidazzler wrote: »

Not surprized.

but are you surprised?

Biggins

I agree, no surprise.
The more your open to ideas not restrained by religious ideology, restrictive thinking and/or tighter social practises, the more a free thinking mind will have room to expand and thus by consequence, see more possibilities, openings and expansion of ideas, thoughts and plans - all of which will further educate.

The first step is always the hardest.

Sea Sharp

The Devil obviously interfered with the results. :rolleyes:

Antbert

Doubt this'll result in much of an argument. No clever smug atheists will get involved. Only silly unintelligent Christians.

TheBigLebowski

Shock: people who can think for themselves in a logical way are smarter than that those that follow blindly. :rolleyes:

pablomakaveli

Zoroastrianism ftw.

OutlawPete

I don't really understand what the article is trying to say but I know one thing for sure.

The author of that study will burn in the eternal fires of Hell and their soul will be cast down into damnation for all eternity.

Cupcake_Crisis

Not too surprised tbh.

Millicent

I wonder if this study is in any way biased at all? Kanazawa seems to have a very narrow view of the reasons behind religious belief.

"It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said.

I'm not religious but I certainly wouldn't say all faith is derived from paranoia.

I also notice that there was no reference to agnosticism: I feel so left out!

Sea Sharp

Millicent wrote: »

I also notice that there was no reference to agnosticism: I feel so left out!

Fish in a barrel.

/gets popcorn.

minidazzler

Millicent wrote: »

I wonder if this study is in any way biased at all? Kanazawa seems to have a very narrow view of the reasons behind religious belief.



I'm not religious but I certainly wouldn't say all faith is derived from paranoia.

I also notice that there was no reference to agnosticism: I feel so left out!

You're right, there is also the element of delusion. (Thank you Mr. Dawkins! )

Riddle101

Bullsh!t. You can be religous and still have a high IQ or higher then an Atheist. This thread proves nothing but people's arrogance in thinking they're smarter then people who are religous.

Millicent

minidazzler wrote: »

You're right, there is also the element of delusion. (Thank you Mr. Dawkins! )

Goddam Richard Dawkins!:D "Delusion" is also something which can't be conclusively proven and serves to weaken a lot of atheist argument, IMO.

Antbert

Riddle101 wrote: »

Bullsh!t. You can be religous and still have a high IQ or higher then an Atheist. This thread proves nothing but people's arrogance in thinking they're smarter then people who are religous.

Think we've got a Christian!

*Waits to be told "I'm not a Christian actually."*

Millicent

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Fish in a barrel.

/gets popcorn.

Dagnabbit, it appears agnostics may be less intelligent by me saying this but... Expand please?

OxfordComma

Honestly, I can't say I'm surprised.

Riddle101

Antbert wrote: »

Think we've got a Christian!

*Waits to be told "I'm not a Christian actually."*

Nope i'm Christian. And proud of it.

rugbyman

OutlawPete wrote: »

I don't really understand what the article is trying to say but I know one thing for sure.

The author of that study will burn in the eternal fires of Hell and their soul will be cast down into damnation for all eternity.

Not at all ,Pete, the author can repent!
Rugbyman

Turtwig

Millicent wrote: »

I also notice that there was no reference to agnosticism: I feel so left out!

Agnosticism is atheism.:)

Bullsh!t. You can be religous and still have a high IQ or higher then an Atheist. This thread proves nothing but people's arrogance in thinking they're smarter then people who are religous.

Just curious, but did you read the study? It doesn't say all liberals have higher IQs than conservative folk- I haven't read it, so I want to check the source before going on CNN. . It does seem though that it says liberals are more likely to have higher IQs. That does NOT say no conservative can't have a higher IQ than a liberal. Also there are atheists who happen to be conservatives so..go figure.

Antbert

Riddle101 wrote: »

Nope i'm Christian. And proud of it.

See now here we have an interesting situation.

If a study came up that announced religious people were smarter than atheists, I don't think atheists would get up in arms about it. Maybe this is arrogance on my part, but I'd probably shrug it off and assume religious people had done the study. I don't know if there is an intelligence difference. I would certainly assume there's a difference in the logical thinking part of the brain though.

But a study comes up claiming the opposite and the religious among us get tetchy.

Sea Sharp

Millicent wrote: »

Dagnabbit, it appears agnostics may be less intelligent by me saying this but... Expand please?

Nah I'm not dissing your intelegence.
I myself went from Christian to agnostic to atheist to strict atheist.

If you try and explain why you're agnostic you'll get ripped to shreads.

SV

Riddle101 wrote: »

Nope i'm Christian. And proud of it.

lol..

there's nothing bullshít about the article at all!

Millicent

Malty_T wrote: »

Agnosticism is atheism.:)

It's really not! :P

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Nah I'm not dissing your intelegence.
I myself went from Christian to agnostic to atheist to strict atheist.

If you try and explain why you're agnostic you'll get ripped to shreads.

That's alright. I'm not gonna post my reasons but suffice to say, it suits me to be agnostic and I don't want either side trying to convert me. Religion (or lack thereof) is a personal thing. I was grand with just the first two steps!

Ostrom

Riddle101 wrote: »

Bullsh!t. You can be religous and still have a high IQ or higher then an Atheist. This thread proves nothing but people's arrogance in thinking they're smarter then people who are religous.

Seems to be an unfortunate trend.

The worst thing about stories like this are the hundreds of important qualifiers that wont make the news. IQ is a notoriously unreliable measure - there are plenty of papers in the literature that will point this out. '6 points' means nothing - Raw scores? Effect size? Difference in significance values across different models?

Depending on the statistic/model used the results could vary enormously - no mention of predictor variables - or what combinations yielded what trends. Even the notes on the news article - on the GSS/NLHS datasets - which raises issues in merging panel and repeated measures data; secondary analysis is always a minefield.

I have no time for religion of any sort, but these things should always be considered in context.

Antbert

efla wrote: »

Seems to be an unfortunate trend.

The worst thing about stories like this are the hundreds of important qualifiers that wont make the news. IQ is a notoriously unreliable measure - there are plenty of papers in the literature that will point this out. '6 points' means nothing - Raw scores? Effect size? Difference in significance values across different models?

Depending on the statistic/model used the results could vary enormously - no mention of predictor variables - or what combinations yielded what trends. Even the notes on the news article - on the GSS/NLHS datasets - which raises issues in merging panel and repeated measures data; secondary analysis is always a minefield.

I have no time for religion of any sort, but these things should always be considered in context.

Well I'm finished being smug for the time being.

So I will say, I completely agree with this.

lugha

Riddle101 wrote: »

Bullsh!t. You can be religous and still have a high IQ or higher then an Atheist. This thread proves nothing but people's arrogance in thinking they're smarter then people who are religous.

Why do people always get this wrong?
@ than group B is does not mean than all@ than all members of group B, just that there is a difference in the average. And in this case, it is pretty small difference (6-11 points).

Sea Sharp

@ than all members of group B, just that there is a difference in the average. And in this case, it is pretty small difference (6-11 points).

To elaborate on this point with an example:
Statistically, Irish people abuse alcohol more than Swedish people. That doesn't imply that all Irish people abuse alcohol. It doesn't imply that there are no alcoholics in Sweden. What it means is that if you randomly select an Irish person and a Swedish person, the Irish person is more likely to be an alcoholic.

So if you randomly select an atheist and a religious person.....

L.Jenkins

liah wrote: »

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html?hpt=C2

Thoughts?

Sweet! Given my liberal views and Atheism, I wouldnt be suprised! Anyone know here know there IQ. At last check I was between 128 - 135, just above average intelligence!

Millicent

lugha wrote: »

Why do people always get this wrong?
@ than group B is does not mean than all@ than all members of group B, just that there is a difference in the average. And in this case, it is pretty small difference (6-11 points).

I think Riddle's reaction is more to do with the (small number of) increasingly militant atheists who can be pretty patronising when discussing religion, rather than with the study itself.

Riddle101

Antbert wrote: »

See now here we have an interesting situation.

If a study came up that announced religious people were smarter than atheists, I don't think atheists would get up in arms about it. Maybe this is arrogance on my part, but I'd probably shrug it off and assume religious people had done the study. I don't know if there is an intelligence difference. I would certainly assume there's a difference in the logical thinking part of the brain though.

But a study comes up claiming the opposite and the religious among us get tetchy.

You want to know why I got tetchy. It's because it's a touchy subject that I know is going to be a shot religous people. I have no doubt that article dosen't label all Atheists or Liberals to be smarter, but what this thread implies, is that they are. On the first page of the thread for instance you have people, saying it's not so surpsing. Is that supposed to be a shot at us, as if to imply that it's true. But still, I would say there would very well be Atheists on here complaining as well, if the thread said religous and conservatives have higher IQs. But anyway I don't believe either side can claim to be smarter then the other, it's just a matter of whether people who are intelligent choose to believe in god or not. Or choose to be conservative or liberal.

Antbert

djhunter30 wrote: »

Sweet! Given my liberal views and Atheism, I wouldnt be suprised! Anyone know here know there IQ. At last check I was between 128 - 135, just above average intelligence!

PLEASE NO.

An intelligence-off on the Internet is unbelievably cringe-inducing.

Millicent wrote: »

I think Riddle's reaction is more to do with the (small number of) increasingly militant atheists who can be pretty patronising when discussing religion, rather than with the study itself.

Well then he should have said that. There are particularly unpleasant militant atheists I admit, but then I think Christians assign the term "arrogant" to anyone who questions them.

Arrogance isn't exactly the worst trait anyway. Not great, but not the worst.

Antbert

Riddle101 wrote: »

You want to know why I got tetchy. It's because it's a touchy subject that I know is going to be a shot religous people. I have no doubt that article dosen't label all Atheists or Liberals to be smarter, but what this thread implies, is that they are. On the first page of the thread for instance you have people, saying it's not so surpsing. Is that supposed to be a shot at us, as if to imply that it's true. But still, I would say there would very well be Atheists on here complaining as well, if the thread said religous and conservatives have higher IQs. But anyway I don't believe either side can claim to be smarter then the other, it's just a matter of whether people who are intelligent choose to believe in god or not. Or choose to be conservative or liberal.

I think maybe the reason you get tetchy and atheists in the opposite scenario wouldn't (I theorise) is that on the Internet you're in the minority and feel the need to fight your corner.

I do echo what I said earlier, that these studies should be regarded with skepticism anyway.

Columbia

Riddle101 wrote: »

Bullsh!t. You can be religous and still have a high IQ or higher then an Atheist.

The study itself goes out of its way to point this out, so in what way is it bullsh*t? It goes against what the Christian Church would like to believe, is that why it's bullsh*t? We've all heard that one before, to be fair.

Edit: and you obviously make a correct point, I'm not arguing that. The most intelligent person I know is also the most devout Catholic I know, but I don't understand why you think it's bullsh*t when the article itself points out what you've said.

L.Jenkins

Antbert wrote: »

PLEASE NO.

An intelligence-off on the Internet is unbelievably cringe-inducing.
QUOTE]

Its just a general question!

MagicMarker

Riddle101 wrote: »

Bullsh!t. You can be religous and still have a high IQ or higher then an Atheist. This thread proves nothing but people's arrogance in thinking they're smarter then people who are religous.

Riddle101 wrote: »

Nope i'm Christian. And proud of it.

Oh the irony.

flowersagogo

well folks as its sunday tomorrow just dig out the ole scrabble board and see if ya can get a game off someone coming out of tomorrow's show...

Antbert

djhunter30 wrote: »

Its just a general question!

Here's why I object.

I have an IQ of 987. Prove otherwise.

Pointless. And lame.

Ostrom

Columbia wrote: »

The study itself goes out of its way to point this out, so in what way is it bullsh*t? It goes against what the Christian Church would like to believe, is that why it's bullsh*t? We've all heard that one before, to be fair.

Edit: and you obviously make a correct point, I'm not arguing that. The most intelligent person I know is also the most devout Catholic I know, but I don't understand why you think it's bullsh*t when the article itself points out what you've said.

This bit is interesting - "Kanazawa did not find that higher or lower intelligence predicted sexual exclusivity in women"

Treating sexual exclusivity as outcome is a decision of the researcher, as is treating IQ, with liberalism and atheism as predictors - other combinations could have produced significant/insignificant results (again, there are many ways of reckoning significance, which are partly disciplinary).

We have no idea what predictors were used for IQ, yet its inclusion still permits a headline such as the thread title. My point is you can whip up significant results from just about any amount of model/combination tweaking - it is for the reader to judge in the context of a fully disclosed methodology and analysis.

Although I will gladly eat my hat after reading the paper.

L.Jenkins

Antbert wrote: »

Here's why I object.

I have an IQ of 987. Prove otherwise.

Pointless. And lame.

Touché

Tar.Aldarion

This is similar to the article that said vegetarians have higher IQ's. There are a lot of other factors such as education etc along other aspects of your general background that come into play, not just how you think about one question.

In the end I think both studies are nonsense, and both are right anyway :pac:

Antbert

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

This is similar to the article that said vegetarians have higher IQ's. There are a lot of other factors such as education etc along other aspects of your general background that come into play, not just how you think about one question.

In the end I think both studies are nonsense, and both are right anyway :pac:

I note you're a mod of the Vegetarian forum.

Riddle101

Columbia wrote: »

The study itself goes out of its way to point this out, so in what way is it bullsh*t? It goes against what the Christian Church would like to believe, is that why it's bullsh*t? We've all heard that one before, to be fair.

Edit: and you obviously make a correct point, I'm not arguing that. The most intelligent person I know is also the most devout Catholic I know, but I don't understand why you think it's bullsh*t when the article itself points out what you've said.

I said bullsh*t because I don't think one article should be seen as the be all and end all of things. It's not surpising for someone to be a tad bit skeptical. We all tend to be cautious about what we read.

Antbert

Riddle101 wrote: »

I said bullsh*t because I don't think one article should be seen as the be all and end all of things. It's not surpising for someone to be a tad be skeptical. We all tend to be cautious about what we read.

No one really said that it was the be all and end all though...

Riddle101

Antbert wrote: »

No one really said that it was the be all and end all though...

Yes I know that. But you asked me why I said what I said.

Tar.Aldarion

Antbert wrote: »

I note you're a mod of the Vegetarian forum.

Indeed, that does make me super-dooper smart. :<