That's probably what it seems to him, but I believe Xaqaria and myself are talking about something more subtle than what meets the intellect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
If there's nothing for him to add then I won't add anything either.
Printable View
That's probably what it seems to him, but I believe Xaqaria and myself are talking about something more subtle than what meets the intellect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario92
If there's nothing for him to add then I won't add anything either.
disappointing.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
The second ones where the numbers go, 44%, 47%, 44%, 47%, 45%, 45% in that order. That isn't a trend, that is the same result every time with a slight differences because of the margin of error. And if you look at the other two columns they both reflect that as well. They claim it is a trend, but it isn't, and it obviously isn't.
The IQ of native americans has no reflection on the IQ of average people living in the US. So you can throw that entire map out.
Then you have two charts that directly conflict with each other. I have no idea which is true and which isn't. But you can't really use either to prove something since you know for a fact one is wrong, and you would just be guessing.
The problem is the data is to inconsistent and not complete. It is even worse, when you are trying to compare multiple charts from different time periods, dealing with different topics.
I am not ignoring any facts. I am simply saying the facts are not facts, if it comes from questionable data.
1. I do, i just am talking out of my own experiences of being tested, in which I was ONLY tested on math, memory, and abstract thinking, which left me feeling as if I wasn't tested on all levels. So maybe I'm biased in that respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
2. I took it from that scatter plot graph, 10 dots are close to mentally handicapped. I shouldn't have said most, but its still significant.
3. It does. I just find it hard to accept countries are on average mentally handicapped? Which is why I explained the intelligence isn't correctly being calculated.
Everything I'm saying probably is ignorant, you asked for my thoughts.
Oh come now, it can't be as bad as all that can it? What good are ideas without someone to bounce them off...it offers the opportunity to learn from others, or to strengthen your own convictions...and both, if you're lucky. I would be inclined to think a scenario in which we were to all seamlessly agree would be a far greater waste of time...Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
And, forgive me if I'm missing something here...but if you are saying you aren't attempting to prove strict causation [for which one would need a wealth of further evidence], and that the evidence simply points to a correlation [which it obviously does]...
...why does it seem like everyone is arguing as if the proposed evidence [or someone's percieved lack thereof] represents a causal claim? Am i missing something?
That being said though, I'm humbly of the belief stated elsewhere in this thread...that although the evidence clearly points to a correlation, I feel there are most likely many other factors which could be shown to influence IQ, and therefore to say it is the predominant one would require far more evidence.
Actually it's the truth, if this is what you feel is an important study than you look like an assclown. It's that simple, it's not an ad hominem attack that's how you will be viewed by the majority of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
This study like many others can easily be rigged to put out the kind of data that you want. You keep believing it, I'm sure you've done 0% fact checking.Quote:
How are they faulty again? It sounds like you have no argument and just squirming to find any sort of defense. Remember, none of this is saying that no religious person can be smarter than another non-religious one.
Nice try.
You provided us some junk science, congratulations.Quote:
I would say this too if I had no better rebuttal or substantial way to debate the topic.
I read it jumps to the conclusion that IQ's and Religion are linked, simply because of some poorly designed statistics. You assume that because if this study is even accurate that they are automatically somehow dependent.. This is simply a stupid statistic that in a few years if done by a different group would have different statistics..Quote:
It is evidence. Do you read?
Their is no mockery, you posted someone elses "data" , and assumed it's accurate and refuse to accept that it makes your movement look like a bunch of "I am superior", whiners.Quote:
This comment is terribly ironic as you have demonstrated your clearly obvious hypocrisy. You ought to consider the context before jumping in and making a mockery of yourself.
Atheists* such as yourself tend to buy into any study without an ounce of fact checking or understanding how their is no clear correlation and nothing but an assumption. And in the end it makes you look like a blowhard with a superiority complex.Quote:
It's not a movement - it's truth; Atheists are more often smarter than Theists.
Deal with it.
All your study proves it that countries that are less developed tend to be more religious and less intelligent... America being more religious and more intelligent shows my point to be true.
Alric seems to have this under control already, he can smell a fishy study obviously.
*Atheists - Not all, just ones like yourself who focus on stupid studies.
On a side note - It may be wise to get in touch with your emotional side, you'll find yourself alone but you'll have your numbers.
You know, I spent an actual hour or two researching these topics and it really pisses me off to see that there are humans out there that give such asinine responses.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
You, and all others, have not provided any alternative data nor really (save Alric) provided any substantial criticism to the research other than "This is hate data!"
To say that I have not done any fact finding and that it is junk science, then call me an assclown, does nothing but show your lack of respect for me as I have provided nothing but facts and research studies. The hypocrisy is ridiculous; accuse me of being an assclown and providing no research but you actually do not do any justifications or reasoning for saying these things. You are not saying why you think they are junk science nor why I am an assclown.
Honestly, I am losing confidence in the majority's capability to debate, let alone think. The responses in this thread clearly demonstrate that many people would rather be defensive and act childish then actually debate on a substantial level.
Save for Alric - thank you for your thoughtful scrutiny, I highly respect it, opposed to the nonsense and non-thinking for the rest of these pillocks. I will give you a fair response later on after I honestly double check my sources as you noted I ought to (which is fair).
I challenge any of you to provide evidence of the opposite of what I have shown. Not to prove me wrong, but to prove you have a capacity for real debate.
~
Respect others whether you agree with them or not; whether you think they're providing a substantial debate (as you see it).
Maybe you should stick to your own word, and respond again to my posts with the quality you want to see in others. But as for now I have nothing more to say about the statistics; I think they've been well criticized already.
All you did was try to derail the topic into spirituality; what responses are you referring to when you say I ought to give them fair responses because they surely were not yours. You have completely failed in offering any scrutiny but offered a lot of digression and irrelevant propositions. You can debate what intelligence is all you want, but there is an obvious premise of intelligence in this thread and it is defined by the WAIS. If you want to debate that, go ahead, but that is irrelevant and I have grown intolerant of you derailing behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by really
~
What don't you understand? No one else has studied this nonsense, so I don't have any data to provide you. Alric has already taken care of showing your data to be junk, I have no need to repeat him.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
This isn't worth a second and third debate, it's nothing but simple debauchery of statistics. Why would I repeat his words, it doesn't even make sense.. But as always onus, you'll go off on your little tangents. No one can handle a real debate, etc.. etc...
No one is going to waste their time to put together a study proving the opposite, because it's pointless.. You know I could probably find a correlation between Cow milk drinking and IQ as well, you still don't get it.
(It's also not my fault you don't understand how humans think or work. I think it's self explanatory why people would view you as I put it an "assclown". You may understand the bones, but probably have little understanding of true human emotion)
P.S. It's junk science, because it's a bunch of studies that are unrelated and in different time periods and made it fit to support someones theory, who really cares if large assumptions are made... (Alric has already been discussing this with you, do I really need to repeat his exact words? Redundancy is something you need?)
What about agnostic's ? We have a different look out into the world. Exploring different ways, i would say thats the best.
Most of the data was including Agnostics with Atheists and non-Theists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucidness
Firstly, he has not shown it to be junk data, just questionable context. Further, it was only for two sources which I am going to respond to now in this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
The fact that you cannot provide an intelligent response to this and instead favour emotional distress only reinforces my original argument.
It's not a debauchery at all and just because you preposition it as so does not make it true but only demonstrates your incapability to debate. I understand though if you have a problem accepting facts and lack the intelligence to do so.Quote:
This isn't worth a second and third debate, it's nothing but simple debauchery of statistics. Why would I repeat his words, it doesn't even make sense.. But as always onus, you'll go off on your little tangents. No one can handle a real debate, etc.. etc...
Wow.Quote:
No one is going to waste their time to put together a study proving the opposite, because it's pointless.. You know I could probably find a correlation between Cow milk drinking and IQ as well, you still don't get it.
I am sorry, I have a degree in psychology and philosophy. I believe I may be actually qualified in it as opposed to yourself. Could you perhaps offer any sort of substantial argument rather than ad hominems and other immature displays of childish prepositions?Quote:
(It's also not my fault you don't understand how humans think or work. I think it's self explanatory why people would view you as I put it an "assclown". You may understand the bones, but probably have little understanding of true human emotion)
lol, do you read? Alric didn't disprove anything but questioned the context of TWO studies.Quote:
P.S. It's junk science, because it's a bunch of studies that are unrelated and in different time periods and made it fit to support someones theory, who really cares if large assumptions are made... (Alric has already been discussing this with you, do I really need to repeat his exact words? Redundancy is something you need?)
The most important one, by Lynn, has not been touched upon by anyone yet.
I was not intending to focus on the Creatinist view column but the Naturalistic Evolution column. Although the growth is small, it is still growing in an upward trend. I have not drawn the margin of error for it, but if it makes any difference to you, that chart is taken from a religious website and still supports my cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
If there are problems in the data finding, it would actually most likely be in the Christian bias as the statistics in this specific chart are funded by Christian organizations.
I think that ought to quell the bias argument as well. DeathCell ought to pay attention here.
Firstly, you are going to argue that native people are not people that ought to be considered when we debate humans in general? Natives still have religious beliefs and they do differ amongst countries. Isn't that obvious? We can still consider their data and use them.Quote:
The IQ of native americans has no reflection on the IQ of average people living in the US. So you can throw that entire map out.
More importantly, this is only one minor study I did not use as a major keystone; the Lynn argument is. That should be obvious by my headings.
You must consider the confounding of these data sets. There are always discrepancies but there are more similarities. This is just a common thing in statistics and you must not always look at the minority. In this case, there are actually more similarities.Quote:
Then you have two charts that directly conflict with each other. I have no idea which is true and which isn't. But you can't really use either to prove something since you know for a fact one is wrong, and you would just be guessing.
This is simply not true. You're exaggerating now.Quote:
The problem is the data is to inconsistent and not complete. It is even worse, when you are trying to compare multiple charts from different time periods, dealing with different topics.
Either way, I challenge you to provide data in the opposing view.
You have questioned two minor sources of mine that were of most minor value to me of all of them. The one was even from a Christian organization.Quote:
I am not ignoring any facts. I am simply saying the facts are not facts, if it comes from questionable data.
The most important study in this argument, by Lynn, has not been touched upon at all.
---
I understand if people have a problem accepting facts, but honestly these responses would get some of you people removed in a public academic forum. Unfortunately, you must accept that religious beliefs can and do affect IQ results as well as lifestyle choices. This is just simple fact alongside many other beliefs that affect your lifestyle. There will be statistical probabilities found amongst these lifestyles. In this instance, it is that non-Theists have a higher IQ. This is only really by about 10 though (above statistically significant).
I am not saying that Atheists are superior, I am simply showing the results of studies and asking what people think of them. Does this mean that more people ought to be Atheist? Clearly no. I never said that. Does it mean we maybe ought to reinforce removal of Church from education though? Clearly YES, I do think that.
~
I mean junk science! And that's what it is, you are taking unrelated statistics and correlating them.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
Their is no emotional distress, you are just playing your card of ignorance in this round. Your original argument has to do with the nonreligious being more intelligent, on shady correlations. And the fact that Alric and I noticed, and the fact that I don't feel the need to repeat whats already been said has given you a reason to dig for a way to change the subject. Claim with no real explanation that I am being emotional, you mistake passion for an emotional problem. But it's not much of a surprise, I don't expect you to have a good grasp on human emotions.Quote:
The fact that you cannot provide an intelligent response to this and instead favour emotional distress only reinforces my original argument.
You just wasted two sentences that said nothing. More of a personal attack, you still seem to refuse to accept that Alric has already gone over this. I think you lack the humility to accept that you can be wrong. After all... we'll see your "boasting" later in your post.Quote:
It's not a debauchery at all and just because you preposition it as so does not make it true but only demonstrates your incapability to debate. I understand though if you have a problem accepting facts and lack the intelligence to do so.
YES WOW ONUS. Did you know because two things are shown to be in relation, doesn't mean one and the other are necessarily linked! Their could be many other factors affecting this apparent link, but you rely on this forums ignorance to that to make your study somehow true.Quote:
Wow.
Perhaps you should take your own advice Onus.Quote:
I am sorry, I have a degree in psychology and philosophy. I believe I may be actually qualified in it as opposed to yourself. Could you perhaps offer any sort of substantial argument rather than ad hominems and other immature displays of childish prepositions?
But remember Onus has a "degree" in boasting on the internet. I believe you may be actually qualified in bullshiting on the internet.Quote:
lack the intelligence to do so.
Context is one of the most important parts of a study. It's that simple. You can easily use your study out of context to prove your point. Alric disproved you, by using studies in questionable context, you make it invalid.Quote:
lol, do you read? Alric didn't disprove anything but questioned the context of TWO studies.
Just because we don't have studies proving the opposite doesn't mean your study is any more accurate than a loose, out of context, two hour ordeal. And you seem to get rather emotionally charged when people question your study.
No. I am not. You clearly demonstrate your negligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Interesting that you think Alric and yourself have pointed out such significant problems whereas, if you read, you will notice that my point still remains strong. In fact, my strongest point remains completely untouched (Lynn study).Quote:
Their is no emotional distress, you are just playing your card of ignorance in this round. Your original argument has to do with the nonreligious being more intelligent, on shady correlations. And the fact that Alric and I noticed, and the fact that I don't feel the need to repeat whats already been said has given you a reason to dig for a way to change the subject. Claim with no real explanation that I am being emotional, you mistake passion for an emotional problem. But it's not much of a surprise, I don't expect you to have a good grasp on human emotions.
But you seem to be so blinded by your "passion" that you fail to see that.
No one has gone over the strongest crux of my point.Quote:
You just wasted two sentences that said nothing. More of a personal attack, you still seem to refuse to accept that Alric has already gone over this. I think you lack the humility to accept that you can be wrong. After all... we'll see your "boasting" later in your post.
What? Are you saying that I ought to hold back evidence and arguments because this forum is too ignorant and sensitive?Quote:
YES WOW ONUS. Did you know because two things are shown to be in relation, doesn't mean one and the other are necessarily linked! Their could be many other factors affecting this apparent link, but you rely on this forums ignorance to that to make your study somehow true.
You accuse me of using emotional attacks and ad hominems..? Are you reading yourself..?Quote:
But remember Onus has a "degree" in boasting on the internet. I believe you may be actually qualified in bullshiting on the internet.
Alric did not disprove me whatsoever. Even if he was right in his points, 100%, they were only subsequent points. Why do you exaggerate this to the destruction of the entire post?Quote:
Context is one of the most important parts of a study. It's that simple. You can easily use your study out of context to prove your point. Alric disproved you, by using studies in questionable context, you make it invalid.
I am not surprised though; you see someone make a substantial point, something you cannot do, and piggy-back off of them because you lack the ability to come up with anything but a hoping emotional argument.
Your best argument is that:
- O'nus is an emotional attacking prick
- Thus, O'nus is wrong.
But I have actually provided evidence. You ignore it.
Who is the ignoramus in this respect..?
I seem to get emotionally charged? I will tell you when I am, and I have done so in the past. It is infrequent that I do, but I will tell you. You can clearly search and see it for yourself.Quote:
Just because we don't have studies proving the opposite doesn't mean your study is any more accurate than a loose, out of context, two hour ordeal. And you seem to get rather emotionally charged when people question your study.
What disappoints me the most is that I thought some religious people, like yourself, would disprove or act in the minority, with some responses of substance. You have done nothing but prove otherwise. Keep trying to attack me instead of the evidence (which has not been touched upon by a single post yet).
~
Onus you are seriously misguiding yourself because you did this study yourself. Their was no personal attacks, I simply told you how you'd be viewed by the majority of the world. Onus you have a degree in boasting, because who in their right mind boasts about the degrees and qualifications you have on a forum?(Excuse my previous sarcastic manner, but you should easily be able to understand why I would scoff at someone talking themselves up)
My argument had nothing to do with you being an "emotional prick" I simply have mentioned your obvious emotional response, after your claiming I was...
P.S. If your argument is left down to one thing as a crux, than your argument is probably not very well done.. You keep pulling away at layers of the onion, and find out it's nothing but straw.
P.S.S. Your study simply relies on assuming that even if this data matches up, that they must be related. Like I said, their are probably many other factors affecting IQ levels.. As you can see the US has higher IQ and higher religion, so perhaps it's the more "civilized" world having higher IQs for lack of a better term. We don't know because you said it yourself, you spend two hours doing this.. Hardly enough time to be a completely unbiased, accurate, statement.
Onus you want to do something good for science and the world? This isn't it. All you're doing is driving a bigger wedge.
Your points:Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
A) I boast my degree
B) I have emotional responses
C) My evidence is unrelated
D) Other factors affect IQ
E) Crux of arguments make it insignificant
Responses:
A) When have I ever boasted my degree? You provide me one single quotation. The only time I would ever mention this is if someone questioned my "authority" or "credentials" to say something.
B) The only emotional response I have had is disappointment. You provide me one single good quotation to show otherwise. Furthermore, even if you do, what is the point? It still has nothing to do with my original argument whatsoever, even if I had an emotional response. You can do better than that.. or so I thought.
C) My evidence is completely and absolutely related and that is why it is so ground-breaking at this time. You obviously did not read a single thing but instead piggy-backed off of Alrics criticism of two of the minor studies. The major study is from Lynn.
D) Yes, other factors can contribute to correlations and IQ. I have been accepting this the entire time. You have been neglecting it. Please review the posts before making a complete ass of yourself.
E) There is a crux in every argument. Don't be stupid. You are really reaching for straws if you are seriously going to argue that, if I have a primary study to rely upon, that I must not have a very good argument. There are plenty of confounding variables, and you are not accepting that.
Please, no more nonsense from you. Your emotional antagonizing nature is taxing to my patience. It does nothing but prove your incapability to actually provide any argument whatsoever. Note that "Why repeat what Alric said" is not an argument but laziness.
~
These were never my original points, only after you started with your nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by O'nus
That was the quote I was talking about, no one questioned your "authority", really no one online cares. It's simple showboating, to post your credentials in a forum.Quote:
A) When have I ever boasted my degree? You provide me one single quotation. The only time I would ever mention this is if someone questioned my "authority" or "credentials" to say something.
You shouldn't have asked..Quote:
B) The only emotional response I have had is disappointment. You provide me one single good quotation to show otherwise.
And it's really funny to see you break down because people don't think your evidence is any good, and don't believe this half-assed study to be the final word on anything. You seem to refuse to accept that people aren't going to waste their time trying to put together a study showing the opposite, because their is things in peoples lives, or time a scientist could be using to invent, or discover something that has some use. Not meaningless studies showing some group more intelligent than the other, especially when you COMPLETELY continue to disregard the fact that their are other FACTORS affecting IQ than just religious affiliations.Quote:
Honestly, I am losing confidence in the majority's capability to debate, let alone think. The responses in this thread clearly demonstrate that many people would rather be defensive and act childish then actually debate on a substantial level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onus
You are just being immature yourself, you are simply ignoring the fact that I entered this topic after Alric, and have no need or reason to repeat what he already said. I said my piece, my opinion and for some reason because it's not a study of my own it's not valid enough for you. You are simply blinded by your own ambition.Quote:
Save for Alric - thank you for your thoughtful scrutiny, I highly respect it, opposed to the nonsense and non-thinking for the rest of these pillocks. I will give you a fair response later on after I honestly double check my sources as you noted I ought to (which is fair).
No one is providing you counter-evidence, no one has actually wasted their time to study this. Simply Alric showing you that your argument is based on questionable connections, and my point that you've ignored multiple times. Which is that even if IQ and religious affiliation has some connection, the fact that the US breaks out of this mold could be cause/reason to believe that something else is affecting IQ such as how civilized a country is. But you have yet to say anything about that, that would be counterproductive to your nonsense about emotional outbursts. You do realize just because you can repeat yourself multiple times, doesn't make your statement accurate?
Onus you seem to have a hard time following, you mentioned my emotional response in the first place.. and than I pointed out the fact that you seem to be doing it.. You are the one who has been trying to change the subject and aim some sort of emotional instability my way. I should be telling you, that you can do better than that.Quote:
Furthermore, even if you do, what is the point? It still has nothing to do with my original argument whatsoever, even if I had an emotional response. You can do better than that.. or so I thought.
It's an assumption, I'm not piggy-backing it's true.Quote:
C) My evidence is completely and absolutely related and that is why it is so ground-breaking at this time. You obviously did not read a single thing but instead piggy-backed off of Alrics criticism of two of the minor studies. The major study is from Lynn.
Than why would you name the topic the nonreligious are more intelligent.. You are simply backpedaling. You want us to believe that IQ and religion are linked, when you have yet to give an explanation for the OUTLIER!Quote:
D) Yes, other factors can contribute to correlations and IQ. I have been accepting this the entire time. You have been neglecting it. Please review the posts before making a complete ass of yourself.
If you have an argument and the crux is all that's left, one has to wonder how accurate your work was. It's that simple if when we start to pick apart at your onion and find it to be nothing but straws, what could be at the core?Quote:
E) There is a crux in every argument. Don't be stupid. You are really reaching for straws if you are seriously going to argue that, if I have a primary study to rely upon, that I must not have a very good argument. There are plenty of confounding variables, and you are not accepting that.
Please, Onus. Your the one who is obviously having an emotional response. You put your time into this study, and your reactions show your emotion. Why should I repeat alric? You have yet to explain why I should repeat the same things he already said, you claim it's lazy, I claim it would be redundant.Quote:
Please, no more nonsense from you. Your emotional antagonizing nature is taxing to my patience. It does nothing but prove your incapability to actually provide any argument whatsoever. Note that "Why repeat what Alric said" is not an argument but laziness.
Onus, with posts like that.... You'd have a job with the Nazi' any day.. Just switch out religious people with Jews.Quote:
Either way the point remains - religious people are not as intelligent.
Onus, someday maybe you'll understand the profound impact your words and time can have. Just imagine with your intelligence what kind of study you could be doing that would have some actually positive impact on the world, instead your spending your time trying to prove you're more intelligent... haha (in case you don't understand this, you are an atheist(agnostic) who isn't religious... so you are thus "proving" your more intelligent... or at least equally delusional.)
You obviously don't seem to understand how condescending your attitude is, but it's not a surprise.
The following is excerpts i've found about Lynn online.
The following is about the Lynn study, that is your "crux".Quote:
Lynn has been frequently criticized as a Pioneer fund grantee.
Quote:
The figures were obtained by taking unweighted averages of different IQ tests. The number of studies is very limited; the IQ figure is based on one study in 34 nations, two studies in 30 nations. There were actual tests for IQ in 81 nations. In 104 of the world's nations there were no IQ studies at all and IQ was estimated based on IQ in surrounding nations.[4] The number of participants in each study was usually limited, often numbering under a few hundred. The exceptions to this were the United States and Japan, for which studies using more than several thousand participants are available.
Many nations are very heterogeneous ethnically. This is true for many developing countries. It is very doubtful that an often limited number of participants from one or a few areas are representative for the population as whole.
Studies that were averaged together often used different methods of IQ testing, different scales for IQ values and/or were done decades apart. IQ in children is different although correlated with IQ later in life and many of the studies tested only young children.
A test of 108 9-15-year olds in Barbados, of 50 13–16-year olds in Colombia, of 104 5–17-year olds in Ecuador, of 129 6–12-year olds in Egypt, of 48 10–14-year olds in Equatorial Guinea, and so on, all were taken as measures of 'national IQ'.[5]
The notion that there is such a thing as a culturally neutral intelligence test is disputed.[28][29][30][31][32] There are many difficulties when one is measuring IQ scores across cultures, and in multiple languages. Use of the same set of exams requires translation, with all its attendant difficulties and possible misunderstandings in other cultures.[33] To adapt to this, some IQ tests rely on non-verbal approaches, which involve pictures, diagrams, and conceptual relationships (such as in-out, great-small, and so on).
Quote:
There are also errors in the raw data presented by authors. The results from Vinko Buj's 1981 study of 21 European cities and the Ghanaian capital Accra used different scaling from Lynn and Vanhanen's. A comparison of the reported to actual data from only a single study found 5 errors in 19 reported IQ scores.[34][35]
The national IQ of Ethiopia was estimated from a study done on 250 fifteen-year-eld Ethiopian Jews one year after their migration to Israel. The research compares their level of performance with native Israelis using progressive matrices tests. It is strange that the data used to represent the "IQ of Ethiopia" are restricted to a tiny ethnic minority in Ethiopia, and that the tests were not even conducted in Ethiopia. Furthermore, one study showed that after intensive training, the cognitive ability of Ethiopian Jewish immigrants improved and caught up with that of their native Israeli peer groups.[36]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_...ions#CriticismQuote:
As noted earlier, in many cases arbitrary adjustments were made by authors to account for the Flynn effect or when the authors thought that the studies were not representative of the ethnic or social composition of the nation.
One critic writes: "Their scheme is to take the British Ravens IQ in 1979 as 100, and simply add or subtract 2 or 3 to the scores from other countries for each decade that the relevant date of test departs from that year. The assumptions of size, linearity and universal applicability of this correction across all countries are, of course, hugely questionable if not breathtaking. Flynn's original results were from only 14 (recently extended to twenty) industrialised nations, and even those gains varied substantially with test and country and were not linear. For example, recent studies report increases of eight points per decade among Danes; six points per decade in Spain; and 26 points over 14 years in Kenya (confirming the expectation that newly developing countries would show more rapid gains)."[5]
There is controversy about the definition and usage of IQ and intelligence. See also race and intelligence.
It is generally agreed many factors, including environment, culture, demographics, wealth, pollution, and educational opportunities, affect measured IQ.[37] See also Health and intelligence.
Finally, the Flynn effect may well reduce or eliminate differences in IQ between nations in the future. One estimate is that the average IQ of the US was below 75 before factors like improved nutrition started to increase IQ scores. Some predict that considering that the Flynn effect started first in more affluent nations, it will also disappear first in these nations. Then the IQ gap between nations will diminish. However, even assuming that the IQ difference will disappear among the babies born today, the differences will remain for decades simply because of the composition of the current workforce. Steve Sailer noted as much when discussing the workforce in both India and China (see second diagram) [7]
I must apologize, people really did waste their time studying this nonsense.
Well I am glad you replied with something with substance. It saddens me that the best you can come up with is Wikipedia.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
Quote:
Lynn has been frequently criticized as a Pioneer fund grantee.
"The Pioneer Fund is a U.S. non-profit foundation established in 1937 "to advance the scientific study of heredity and human differences." Currently headed by psychology professor J. Philippe Rushton, the fund focuses on projects it perceives will not be easily funded due to controversial subject matter."
How is this a bad thing in this context..?
The rest of the criticism is true and sound. I cannot make any justification in Lynn's place for it is not my study. However, this does not mean that the study is "completely debunked and absolute nonsense" or "junk science". It would be absolutely ignorant to categorize it as junk science or nonsense based on this criticism; it is good, but not enough to completely ignore the data sets. There is still very good reason to continue investigation into the matter, is there not?
Please, be more considerate when debating with someone. You cannot seriously believe that I am arguing that religion alone is the only contributing factor to IQ. That would be completely idiotic and a gross mistake on your part to think. There are many, many factors contributing to IQ and it is a great endeavor to try and figure out which ones are firstly significant and which ones are more significant than others. Are you going to argue and say that you do not want to know which factors in life are better than others that could make humans smarter? If you want to argue that, then go ahead and believe it, I won't argue someone who does not want to be smarter.
As another note; you must also not ignore the fact that I am not relying solely on one study. There are also the plethora of studies showing that, with more education, the less religious someone is. In fact, in the National Academy of Scientists, the vast majority are non-religious. While this information is still premature, I think it would be completely disingenuous to the human quest for knowledge to say that we ought to ignore that and label it "Atheist Propaganda" - it's science.
~
Onus I know you have a hard time grasping this, but I don't feel this subject is worth my time. I saw an obvious stupid study, with obvious problems. And made a few quick posts, I am not and will not be spending a lot of time researching something that is in my opinion pointless. You aren't helping science, you aren't helping atheism, you and Lynn are basically doing nothing useful.
Onus no matter how intelligent you are, it'll never help you with dealing with people. Especially when you claim that religion isn't the only factor for intelligence, perhaps you should learn the fundamentals of properly labeling topics/reports. Because "The Nonreligious are More Intelligent" is a pretty bold statement, and in no where did you want to admit that their are other factors until later in the topic..
And your last paragraph explains why people who take the scholarly path end up abandoning religion, but that is still no indication that "the nonreligious are more intelligent", only that those who tend to be intelligent, have a higher tendency to becoming nonreligious. It is propaganda, it's all about how you present the information.. It's presented in a format to make those who are religious appear inexorably unintelligent, you don't necessarily come out in the first post that this is nothing but an assumption and very little has been studied supporting your theory but some statistics. Might I add you, not very stable statistics. And if you really think this study is part of the "human quest for knowledge" than I don't know exactly what to think about you. I think this is more akin to the human quest for superiority.
Who exactly will benefit from this study? What invention is being made to improve life or even for simple fun? What is being cured, what part of society are we really understanding? Or are we simply driving the wedge between religion and science? If you think this study will somehow prove to anyone anything, you are mistaken.. It will simply be hated by the religious, and viewed as gospel by certain atheists... You shouldn't come in here with something that as you said yourself
You really think you've figured out one of the main causes of intelligence??? I highly doubt religion plays any role in that, but our intelligence might play a role in our decisions when it comes to religion. Chew on that.
P.S. Wikipedia is one of the best places available online to "start" research, at that point you move on to confirm sources and find more direct sources.
P.S.S. You and Lynn could be better spending your time.
O'nus has a hard time grasping this? Oh, please. I have yet to see an argument coming from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
He doesn't need to. If there is a statistical correlation between irreligiosity and intelligence, then what he said was true. Of course there are other factors that correlate with intelligence. Maybe you would know this if you knew better what statistical correlations are. To cite a few, the following are positively correlated with intelligence: wealth, leftist political positioning, doctor's degree, altruism, humour, myopia, talking speed, voluntary migration.Quote:
Onus no matter how intelligent you are, it'll never help you with dealing with people. Especially when you claim that religion isn't the only factor for intelligence, perhaps you should learn the fundamentals of properly labeling topics/reports. Because "The Nonreligious are More Intelligent" is a pretty bold statement, and in no where did you want to admit that their are other factors until later in the topic..
If people who study more abandon religion and become more intelligent, that is already enough to make a statistical correlation. That is because people who take the survey will be more likely to be irreligious and have a degree at the same time. It's why it's called "statistical correlation". Jesus.Quote:
And your last paragraph explains why people who take the scholarly path end up abandoning religion, but that is still no indication that "the nonreligious are more intelligent", only that those who tend to be intelligent, have a higher tendency to becoming nonreligious. It is propaganda, it's all about how you present the information.. It's presented in a format to make those who are religious appear inexorably unintelligent, you don't necessarily come out in the first post that this is nothing but an assumption and very little has been studied supporting your theory but some statistics. Might I add you, not very stable statistics. And if you really think this study is part of the "human quest for knowledge" than I don't know exactly what to think about you. I think this is more akin to the human quest for superiority.
There is a difference between science and technology. Just because you won't use it, doesn't mean it's not important.Quote:
Who exactly will benefit from this study? What invention is being made to improve life or even for simple fun? What is being cured, what part of society are we really understanding? Or are we simply driving the wedge between religion and science? If you think this study will somehow prove to anyone anything, you are mistaken.. It will simply be hated by the religious, and viewed as gospel by certain atheists... You shouldn't come in here with something that as you said yourself
Yet, as O'nus said, this is utmost proof that religious education should be dropped from schools.
Man, this is a statistical correlation. O'nus didn't just come and say "I find that irreligious people are smarter". Nah. He said "It has been observed in statistics that irreligious people tend to be smarter". There are exceptions to any statistics, and basing your argument on this fact is dumb, for we all know it.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. It could be that intelligence causes irreligiosity, or it could be that irreligiosity causes intelligence, or it could be that both mutually cause each other, or it could be that both irreligiosity and intelligence are caused by some third factor. If you knew what statistical correlations are, you'd know this..Quote:
You really think you've figured out one of the main causes of intelligence??? I highly doubt religion plays any role in that, but our intelligence might play a role in our decisions when it comes to religion. Chew on that.
You wanna talk about spending time? Get off the Internet and go study. Jebus, drop the unnecessary ad hominems.Quote:
P.S.S. You and Lynn could be better spending your time.
The obvious falsehood of this post is proven in the very fact that you have posted. Now, why have you posted then and what have you contributed? Nothing, save for a Wiki article. Which would be considered junk science in the scientific community; something you accuse me of doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
It is a bold statement. Are you saying that bold statements ought not to be made? Are you so certain that all major things we hold dear are true? Ought we have had ignored Galileo when he claimed that the Earth was not the center of the Earth? Who was it that opposed him? Who is it that is constantly opposed to scientific endeavor? Opposed to the continuing of humans understanding of the universe around us? Of ourselves? Of our minds?Quote:
Onus no matter how intelligent you are, it'll never help you with dealing with people. Especially when you claim that religion isn't the only factor for intelligence, perhaps you should learn the fundamentals of properly labeling topics/reports. Because "The Nonreligious are More Intelligent" is a pretty bold statement, and in no where did you want to admit that their are other factors until later in the topic..
If those things do not interest you, then fine, leave the thread.
Why are you so hellbent on trying to argue that Atheists want domination over Theists? If there is reasonable reason to think that there is actual evidence supporting the idea that Atheists are smarter than Theists, then would you not want to consider the actual evidence? It could very well be the other way around, but this is not the apparent case. This is just as there are psychological differences amongst many many other things.Quote:
And your last paragraph explains why people who take the scholarly path end up abandoning religion, but that is still no indication that "the nonreligious are more intelligent", only that those who tend to be intelligent, have a higher tendency to becoming nonreligious. It is propaganda, it's all about how you present the information.. It's presented in a format to make those who are religious appear inexorably unintelligent, you don't necessarily come out in the first post that this is nothing but an assumption and very little has been studied supporting your theory but some statistics. Might I add you, not very stable statistics. And if you really think this study is part of the "human quest for knowledge" than I don't know exactly what to think about you. I think this is more akin to the human quest for superiority.
Context is everything; maybe you ought to consider that I am a research assistant from a psychology and philosophy program and such data should not be a surprise coming from someone who dedicates their life to studying human behaviour and questioning existence.
Of course, if such things do not interest you.. then why are you speaking?
Benefits from studying intelligence;Quote:
Who exactly will benefit from this study? What invention is being made to improve life or even for simple fun? What is being cured, what part of society are we really understanding? Or are we simply driving the wedge between religion and science? If you think this study will somehow prove to anyone anything, you are mistaken.. It will simply be hated by the religious, and viewed as gospel by certain atheists... You shouldn't come in here with something that as you said yourself
+ Educational systems
+ Childhood development
+ Economical maintenance of SES
+ Sociological legislature
+ Measuring variables on IQ
Only to name a select few. Each with a plethora of sub-reasons.
Of course, if you feel that these things are not important at all... then I think you are stupid, but that is your opinion and you are free to be stupid. That being my opinion too that such things are important.
No, I do not think so. I think that there are much more significant factors. But is it not intriguing to consider that religion is a contributing factor? Realize that there are plethora of reasons, I have always acknowledged and, in fact, make the mistake of assuming that other people. How foolish of me to assume that I ought to put a disclaimer and thorough explanation in all of my controversial posts for the insensitive people out there.Quote:
You really think you've figured out one of the main causes of intelligence??? I highly doubt religion plays any role in that, but our intelligence might play a role in our decisions when it comes to religion. Chew on that.
Grow up.
I find it incredibly ironic that you accuse me of junk science and bad research and then your first substantial rebuttal is from the most disregarded and lousiest form of researching of all scientific mediums. The only reasonable reason I would quote Wikipedia is for defining a term (ie. the flynn effect). But not for proving it (this is why I provided a defining site from wiki and a scientific article under the flynn effect).Quote:
P.S. Wikipedia is one of the best places available online to "start" research, at that point you move on to confirm sources and find more direct sources.
Yet here you are, a walking contradiction and projecting mess of the very example that my original point is about; religious people significantly lack the perspicacity to debate or even think.
Really? What would you suggest as an alternative? Please, give me one that is better and I will immediately take it up.Quote:
P.S.S. You and Lynn could be better spending your time.
What would be such a better thing to do than study the human mind, our intelligence, environmental affects on our intelligence, the economy and our sociological behaviour, socio-economical intelligence, philosophical definitions of intelligence, and the common quest for human understanding?
I understand that you may not want to question what makes us intelligence.
That would make sense.. coming from you.
Expect a PM. No more of this.
~
I think a religious person could be as intelligent as a non-believer and even more there is the possibility that that person could be even more inteligent than an atheistic. But it does not matter. Religion for me is not more than placebo. There is no god.
Indeed a religious person could be as intelligent (or moreso). However, on average, statistically, they're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by sanctispiritus
The point isn't so much as saying "You're religious, so you must be dumb." It's moreover stating "If you're a smart person, then you're probably not religious." As displayed best in the diagram comparing greater scientists. Those 7% of scientists with a personal belief in god are just as smart as the other scientists, but, as you can see, there are much more who don't hold that belief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathCell
I benefited very much.
Threads like this make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.