CSO press release regarding religious demographics

darjeeling

Galway has the highest % of 20-34 year olds of any region or city listed in the census. Given that this age range is the most likely to say they have no religion, it would make sense that Galway should have the highest percentage of non-religious people.

Only it's actually Dublin city that does (sorry, Connacht Sentinel), due to more irreligious older people. And the most irreligious older generations in the whole country are found just to the south in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown.

City / region % aged 20-35 years % No religion
Dublin City 31.6% 11.0%
Galway City 34.8% 10.3%
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown 22.9% 10.2%
Dublin County 27.5% 8.9%
Cork City 28.9% 8.7%
Waterford City 24.7% 5.6%
Limerick City 26.2% 5.3%


All data from http://www.cso.ie/px/pxeirestat/Statire/SelectTable/Omrade0.asp?Planguage=0

darjeeling

Census statoid of the day!

Looking at adults who have completed full-time education, we see that people of different declared religious affiliations vary in levels of formal education.

Some of the differences are due to variations in age - younger people have benefited from better and longer education, whereas 50 years ago (when 95% declared themselves Catholic), many did not receive any education post-school. However, the differences in numbers of PhDs between religious labels are striking, and seem to outweigh any age group effects.

A randomly selected Jewish adult is over 60 times more likely to have a PhD than a random Jehovah's Witness. Catholics are ranked very low (1 PhD per 190 people; only 59% of all Ph.D.s), while the non-religious are a good deal higher (1 PhD per 33 people; 25% of all PhDs).

Make of it what you will!

Religion No. of Ph.D.s__ Ph. D.s per adult
Jewish 98 1 / 13
Society of Friends 34 1 / 19
Baha'i 14 1 / 24
Hindu 167 1 / 27
Lutheran 121 1 / 30
Protestant 94 1 / 31
All non-religious 5560 1 / 33
Muslim (Islamic) 423 1 / 39
Methodist, Wesleyan 116 1 / 40
Buddhist 117 1 / 43
Lapsed (Roman) Catholic 23 1 / 46
Other stated religions 169 1 / 49
Evangelical 37 1 / 63
Presbyterian 247 1 / 66
Pagan, Pantheist 20 1 / 71
Other unlisted Christian denominations 294 1 / 74
Baptist 26 1 / 77
Not stated 180 1 / 80
Ch.of Ire., CoE, Anglican, Episcopalian 982 1 / 84
Orthodox (Greek, Coptic, Russian) 251 1 / 86
Brethren 2 1 / 102
Apostolic or Pentecostal 30 1 / 139
Mormon 4 1 / 170
Roman Catholic 12956 1 / 190
Jehovah's Witness 5 1 / 800

Dades

Possibly relevant; there's an awful lot of foreign doctors working the state, which maybe accounts for many of the top ten or so.

Obliq

Dades wrote: »

Possibly relevant; there's an awful lot of foreign doctors working the state, which maybe accounts for many of the top ten or so.

What would it be relevant too though?

Dades

Why some particular religious groups seem to have a much larger concentration of Ph.Ds, maybe?

darjeeling

I think it could lead to some interesting speculation about both the causes (immigration & emigration of a highly mobile sector of the workforce? cultural prioritisation of education? change of religion while studying?) and the consequences (what ensues from our universities being full of non-believers?).

For my own part, I'll dig out the non-native vs native PhD stats first and see if that explains the numbers.

Edit:
CSO lumps all post-grad diplomas & post-grad degrees together when considering nationality. 7.7% of Irish people have one (200k in all) vs 11% of non-Irish (38k).

Edit 2:
Digging through the education level-by-ethnicity and ethnicity-by-nationality tables indicates around 75-80% of PhDs are Irish, around 20-25% non-nationals (i.e. docs are more likely to migrate). Irish nationals are 90% RC, 4.4% non-religious, while non-nationals are 52% RC, 15% non-rel. So - after a bit of multiplying - non-religious people still seem substantially over-represented and RC people under-represented in the No. of PhDs, even allowing for migration.

Obliq

darjeeling wrote: »

I think it could lead to some interesting speculation about both the causes (immigration & emigration of a highly mobile sector of the workforce? cultural prioritisation of education? change of religion while studying?) and the consequences (what ensues from our universities being full of non-believers?).

For my own part, I'll dig out the non-native vs native PhD stats first and see if that explains the numbers.

Edit:
CSO lumps all post-grad diplomas & degrees when considering nationality. 7.7% of Irish people have one (200k in all) vs 11% of non-Irish (38k).

Well, on that premise: http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieet.org%2Findex.php%2FIEET%2Fmore%2Fpellissier20110719&ei=m_uHUOO-F5SHhQfmpYHIDg&usg=AFQjCNEBSlGxxVGe5sT6FVeh4dzj1j5DnA&sig2=dxAgcZuHrsXjfNTaDDN8ug

That Jewish people are generally better educated is quite well documented. This article is interesting. I've read a bit about Ashkenazi Jews as my fella is one, but has no degree. Neither do I and I'm atheist. Not that that says anything at all about statistics, just a note to accompany my belief that it's probably down to all the reasons you suggest! (immigration & emigration of a highly mobile sector of the workforce? cultural prioritisation of education? change of religion while studying?)

Dades

^^ That's pretty interesting reading. particularly the bits about possible causes for higher IQ's.

Obliq

Dades wrote: »

^^ That's pretty interesting reading. particularly the bits about possible causes for higher IQ's.

Yeah, seems to make sense.

Peregrinus

darjeeling wrote: »

Census statoid of the day!

Looking at adults who have completed full-time education, we see that people of different declared religious affiliations vary in levels of formal education . . . .

Fascinating! Thanks for this.

I think there’s a few factors at work here.

1. Immigration - already been mentioned by Darjeeling. I’m guessing that, e.g., the 167 Hindus with PhDs are mostly immigrants. The very highly educated have a much higher propensity to migrate than the rest of us - they migrate for further education, or they migrate because they are highly qualified, and the job market for highly qualified people is a transnational one. So it isn’t the case that these people have PhDs because they’re Hindus, as that they are turning up in the Irish census because they have PhDs - if they didn’t, the probably wouldn’t be here.

2. And this works both ways. Irish people with PhDs have a much higher propensity to migrate too. Part of the reason for the low Catholic score may be that a high proportion of Irish Catholics with PhDs are not now living in Ireland. (In my own family, between me, my siblings and my first cousins, 4 out of 10 have PhDs. All four live abroad, and are not showing up here. I think that’s pretty typical.)

3. Generational shift. The table is “all adults”, but with the massive opening up of further education in Ireland in the last 30 years, an adult in the 25-50 bracket is much, much more likely to have PhD than an adult in the 50-75 bracket. And younger adults are also more likely to be non-religious.

4. Class. A big predictor of educational attainment is socioeconomic class (by parent’s occupation, or other measure). And we know that religious affiliation is also linked to socioeconomic class. So the 34 Quakers with PhDs, for instance, may have their PhDs, not so much because they are Quakers as because they are middle class.

5. Statistical significance. Where you have a very small religious population, or a very small number of PhDs, the ratio of PhDs to population is probably not very meaningful, since one or two PhDs more or less would make a huge difference to the ratio.

As for Obliq’s link to the article about Asckenazi Jews and IQ; it’s pertinent, but remember that ratios of PhDs to population are measures of educational attainment, not intelligence. Yes, obviously you need a fair degree of academic intelligence to get a PhD, but the depressing fact is that any child’s chances of ever getting a PhD depend vastly more on social, economic and cultural factors than they do on his or her IQ. We can’t draw conclusions about intelligence from these PhD rates, therefore, with anything like the same degree of confidence that we can draw conclusions about social, economic and educational privilege (or the lack of it) and about cultural preferences. And, even then, I think we’d first of all have to control for the migration factors, which I suspect are a major distorter of the figures.

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for Obliq’s link to the article about Asckenazi Jews and IQ; it’s pertinent, but remember that ratios of PhDs to population are measures of educational attainment, not intelligence. Yes, obviously you need a fair degree of academic intelligence to get a PhD, but the depressing fact is that any child’s chances of ever getting a PhD depend vastly more on social, economic and cultural factors than they do on his or her IQ. We can’t draw conclusions about intelligence from these PhD rates, therefore, with anything like the same degree of confidence that we can draw conclusions about social, economic and educational privilege (or the lack of it) and about cultural preferences. And, even then, I think we’d first of all have to control for the migration factors, which I suspect are a major distorter of the figures.

Quite. Which is why I said "That Jewish people are generally better educated is quite well documented.", not "more intelligent". Didn't draw any conclusions about intelligence - to my mind (and the fella would argue this too), it is much more about cultural preference.

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

Quite. Which is why I said "That Jewish people are generally better educated is quite well documented.", not "more intelligent". Didn't draw any conclusions about intelligence - to my mind (and the fella would argue this too), it is much more about cultural preference.

You did say that. The author of the article, however, is not quite as clear-thinking as you!

MagicMarker

Obliq wrote: »

I've read a bit about Ashkenazi Jews as my fella is one....

Is this a unfortunate coincidence.....?

Obliq

Thank you However, any study I can find about the preponderance of Phds in the Jewish community seems to be based on their higher IQ ! Which, I don't know, may be true - considering that better education seems to be such a long running cultural preference (indeed, a survival mechanism) in their case. The stereotypical Jewish mammy desiring a doctor in the family is quite true, apparently!

There's a comment below the article that I thought was interesting. It draws attention to the Irish tradition of having a priest in the family and wonders if it was often the son that was more inclined to academia/study. This preference would then obviously not be passed on, as there would be no children (none admitted to anyway!)

Obliq

MagicMarker wrote: »

Is this a unfortunate coincidence.....?

Ha! Never occurred to me Hmmm. Dodgy. Not going to ask the fella.

Peregrinus

Obliq wrote: »

Thank you However, any study I can find about the preponderance of Phds in the Jewish community seems to be based on their higher IQ ! Which, I don't know, may be true - considering that better education seems to be such a long running cultural preference (indeed, a survival mechanism) in their case. The stereotypical Jewish mammy desiring a doctor in the family is quite true, apparently!

Oh, I’m not denying that Ashkenazi Jews may have higher-than-average IQs. My point is that that certainly not the only, and probably not the largest, factor which accounts for their comparative over-representation among the holders of PhDs. There’s a big cultural factor there, and my guess would be that the high IQs, and the shedload of PhDs are both consequences of the same underlying cause, which is a culturally-driven preference for, and fostering of, certain kinds of attainment over others.

(But any notion that this trait is genetic would be controversial, to say the least.)

Obliq wrote: »

There's a comment below the article that I thought was interesting. It draws attention to the Irish tradition of having a priest in the family and wonders if it was often the son that was more inclined to academia/study. This preference would then obviously not be passed on, as there would be no children (none admitted to anyway!)

Again, that assume that an inclination to academia/study is genetically transmitted, which is not established.

This notion was a major contributor to a more-or-less eugenically-inspired “vanishing Ireland” meme which was popular from the 1930s to the 1950s. Essentially, the argument was that bright and ambitious Irish people tended either to enter the church or to emigrate, and those who remained to spawn in Ireland would naturally have slow and stupid children, and therefore the country was trapped in a vicious spiral of intellectual degeneracy from which no good outcome was possible. Since we are, by and large, the descendants of people who stayed and had families in Ireland we are naturally not inclined to endorse this theory.

My beef with the article, though, really lies in the conclusion, where he says:

“If we promoted high IQ behavior to humans everywhere, globally, would we all become… enhanced? Better humans?”

That looks to me like a rhetorical question, and the answer he’s implying is “yes”. The flaw here is that he looks at areas where Ashkenazi Jews are over-represented, but not to areas where they are under-represented. In a world in which we all had the inclinations and attainments of Ashkenazim, there’d be a lot more lawyers, Hollywood producers and graduates of Ivy League colleges - and a lot fewer nurses, primary school teachers and policemen, and other walks of life in which the Ashkenazim are under-represented. It’s not clear to me that a trade-off of fewer nurses for more Hollywood producers would make this a better world, or us a better species.

Don’t get me wrong. The Ashkenazim can be justifiably proud of their achievements, often won in the teeth of prejudice and discrimination against them. This makes them very successful people, against certain measures of success. I just bridle slightly at the thought that this makes them better people.

Obliq

I agree with everything you're saying. However, I don't believe IQ to be a measure of intelligence. People are intelligent in many different areas and the IQ test only measures those who are clever in certain areas. I too would dismiss the whole notion of genetics, and I'm not sure the writer is saying that it's genetic.

I am saying that the culture of pushing your children in the direction of academia is seemingly something that the Jewish people have done and that it's a possibility that the most academically clever among the Irish traditionally entering the priesthood could have inhibited the natural consequence of the desire that your children be as well educated as yourself. I'm only theorising! Wasn't at all aware of the "vanishing Ireland" theory - and wouldn't at all support the eugenics notion of that!

I don't think intelligence has anything to do with it. Where I said "This preference would then obviously not be passed on, as there would be no children (none admitted to anyway!)" does not imply that I meant in a genetic fashion. I meant that the desire to see your children better educated or to the same standard would not be passed on.

Isn't it also a well-known cultural preference among Hindus (of a certain class) that there is great emphasis on 3rd level education?

Dades

It's funny how you can discuss like adults a study that suggests a minority group has a higher IQ, but if the same study suggested the opposite there'd be doubtless be a kerfuffle after some Boards front-pager arrived hoisting an anti-racism banner.

Obliq

Dades wrote: »

It's funny how you can discuss like adults a study that suggests a minority group has a higher IQ, but if the same study suggested the opposite there'd be doubtless be a kerfuffle after some Boards front-pager arrived hoisting an anti-racism banner.

Quite true I'm sure! IQ being a measure of the kind of intelligence that one culture traditionally has a preference for, and has become successful in, is not a racist stance though. It could be any culture - it just happens to be the Jews and the study into why is interesting. That's all:)

Gbear

Obliq wrote: »

Quite true I'm sure! IQ being a measure of the kind of intelligence that one culture traditionally has a preference for, and has become successful in, is not a racist stance though. It could be any culture - it just happens to be the Jews and the study into why is interesting. That's all:)

Facts can't be racist.

Presumably there had to be one group of humans who have the highest IQ.
It'd be astonishing if there was no genetic difference between any groups of people related to IQ when there's plenty of differences of appearance, resistance to disease, etc...

Doctor DooM

Dades wrote: »

It's funny how you can discuss like adults a study that suggests a minority group has a higher IQ, but if the same study suggested the opposite there'd be doubtless be a kerfuffle after some Boards front-pager arrived hoisting an anti-racism banner.

I was just wondering if you meant majority group or lower IQ by opposite, and then realised the result would be the same...

mikhail

Gbear wrote: »

Facts can't be racist.

Presumably there had to be one group of humans who have the highest IQ.
It'd be astonishing if there was no genetic difference between any groups of people related to IQ when there's plenty of differences of appearance, resistance to disease, etc...

It's important to note the difference between population means and racism. The average black man in the US is more likely to be undereducated, unemployed and have a criminal record than the average white guy. The reasons for this are complicated. The important thing though is not to judge a guy because he's black - individual people are not the average of their peers.

Peregrinus

Gbear wrote: »

Facts can't be racist.

Presumably there had to be one group of humans who have the highest IQ.

Actually, no, there doesn't.

IQ isn't a biological phenomenon like eye colour or gender or a propensity for hay fever. It's a cultural artefact. We made it up. We identified certain skills or abilities - skills or abilities which can be learnt, and having been learnt can be improved - discarded the ones which weren't easily measurable, bundled the rest together and called the measurement of them "IQ".

So a high IQ is an attainment, and quite possibly a significant and valuable attainment. But it's not necessarily a genetically-linked attainment, any more than any other cultural artefact - say, the ability to speak French, or to play the mandolin.

mikhail

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no, there doesn't.

IQ isn't a biological phenomenon like eye colour or gender or a propensity for hay fever. It's a cultural artefact. We made it up. We identified certain skills or abilities - skills or abilities which can be learnt, and having been learnt can be improved - discarded the ones which weren't easily measurable, bundled the rest together and called the measurement of them "IQ".

So a high IQ is an attainment, and quite possibly a significant and valuable attainment. But it's not necessarily a genetically-linked attainment, any more than any other cultural artefact - say, the ability to speak French, or to play the mandolin.

Just because something can be taught doesn't mean people don't have different natural propensities for it. Or different degrees of mastery for that matter. I test off the chart on spatial relations. If I had equivalent hand-eye coordination I might have made a very fine surgeon, or footballer. As it is, I am trained in a different direction, and can no longer hit a moving sliothar with a hurl (a skill I mastered with some difficulty as a kid).

Gbear

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, no, there doesn't.

IQ isn't a biological phenomenon like eye colour or gender or a propensity for hay fever. It's a cultural artefact. We made it up. We identified certain skills or abilities - skills or abilities which can be learnt, and having been learnt can be improved - discarded the ones which weren't easily measurable, bundled the rest together and called the measurement of them "IQ".

So a high IQ is an attainment, and quite possibly a significant and valuable attainment. But it's not necessarily a genetically-linked attainment, any more than any other cultural artefact - say, the ability to speak French, or to play the mandolin.

Mikhail already answered but I'll develop slightly on the languages front - it seems reasonable that one group of relatively distinct humans is better at learning languages in general because their genetics wire their brain in a way that is slightly more suited to languages.

I suppose it is possible that we're all exactly the same in terms of genetic tendencies towards high IQ or that the differences are negligible but it also seems reasonable that some group, somewhere (maybe some random tribe from the Amazon or Inuits or something, who knows), could have a higher average IQ.


Edit: I suppose the point isn't actually about whether anyone has a higher propensity for "intelligence" by any metric you care to mention - the point is that "what ethnic group has the highest IQ" or what group of any people are good at anything is a definite question with real answers and political correctness shouldn't enter into the debate. There should be no hangups about the answer any more than there should be about who are the tallest, the most curly haired or the most likely to develop pancreatic cancer.

Peregrinus

Gbear wrote: »

Edit: I suppose the point isn't actually about whether anyone has a higher propensity for "intelligence" by any metric you care to mention - the point is that "what ethnic group has the highest IQ" or what group of any people are good at anything is a definite question with real answers and political correctness shouldn't enter into the debate. There should be no hangups about the answer any more than there should be about who are the tallest, the most curly haired or the most likely to develop pancreatic cancer.

Except perhaps it should be pointed out that not only is the quality we are testing for something we have invented for the purpose of testing it, but also the whole concept of "ethnic group" is also a cultural artefact. We rather arbitrarily attach great significance to some genetic traits, and little to others. It never occurs to use to divide humanity into races according to eye colour, for instance, yet the genetic variations which give rise to eye colour are no more profound than those which give rise to skin colour.

In other words, we're arbitrarily selecting certain variables, and then looking for correlations between them. The correlations may well exist, but they acquire a signficance far beyond their objective reality because we choose to make a big issue of, e.g., skin colour. There's also the risk that we test for these correlations simply to confirm our assumptions that variable like skin colour are signficant. And of course if you look widely enough for correlations, you will find some.