Thread: The Nonreligious Are More Intelligent

Originally Posted by Invader

Your hand may have slipped up somewhere!

Oh you are right, I made a typo lol.

Why is the belief for immortality dropping? The human lifespan increases as time
progresses and new breakthroughs are made, I was under the impression that it was rather
popularly believed that we would eventually overcome natural death.

I am not sure. Although it is not really pertinent to the point, I did not really look into what "immortality" they are speaking of.

Our IQ tests require basic reasoning skills, and not so much the understanding of
scientific concepts. There's a section that measure's one's capacity for visual/spatial
problems, for example.

I will address this simultaneously with Xaqaria's.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Intelligence quotent is determined through standardized tests that typically measure spatial awareness, linear and verbal reasoning and rational problem solving. They do this with various visual, linguistic and arithmetical puzzles. The tests are designed by scientists and are inherently scientific in nature. For the most part, they measure the so called "left brain" rational and linear brain functions.

The IQ tests were utilizing the Raven's similarities tests and Wechsler IQ tests (WAIS).

In regards to the WAIS:

"Verbal Scales
Information: Range of knowledge
Comprehension: Judgement
Arithmetic: Concentration
Similarities: Abstract thinking
Digit Span: memory, anxiety
Vocabulary: Vocabulary level
Letter-Number-
Sequencing

Performance Scales
Digit Symbol: Visual-motor functioning
Picture Completion: Attention to detail
Picture Arrangement: Planning ability
Block Design: Nonverbal reasoning
Object Assembly: Analysis of part-whole relationships
Matrix Reasoning
Symbol Search

Each subtest has a scaled score of 10 with a SD of 3.






Reliability Information:

Test-Retest: Done for two age groups 25-34 and 45-54. Given in a 2 to 7 week interval. Reliability coefficient ranges from a low of .67 (Object Assembly 45-54) to a high of .94 (Information 45-54). VIQ = .94 (25-34) and .97 (45-54). PIQ = .89 (25-34) and .90 (45-54). FIQ = .95 (25-34) and .96 (45-54)

Split-Half: Spearman-Brown for all subtests except for Digit Span and Digit Symbol for age ranges from 16-17 to 70-74. Reliability coefficient ranges from a low of .52 (Object Assembly 16-17) to a high of .96 (Vocabulary across many of the age ranges). VIQ = .97. PIQ = .93. FIQ = .97.

Alternate-Form: none given

Interitem Consistency: not done. However, correlations between subtests (intrasubtest) and VIQ, PIQ, and FIQ are given but a Cronbach Alpha was not done.

Inter-Rater: not applicable


Standard Error of Measurement: each subtest has a SEM a low of .49 (Vocabulary 16-17) and high of 1.91 (Object Assembly 16-17). Average SEM were VIQ 2.74, PIQ 4.14, and FIQ 2.53


Validity Information:

Face Validity: has face validity

Content Validity: has content validity

Criterion-Related Validity: with academic success, tests of achievement, and formal education

Construct Validity: convergence with similar IQ measures, no divergence given

Standardization:

Size and Composition of the Standardized Sample: 2,450 people comprised the standardization sample reflecting ages 16-89
Describe the Sampling Procedures: Stratified Random Sampling based on the most current census data.

Administration Procedures: individual administration procedure, should be done by a trained evaluator.

Scoring: is done by hand by the evaluator

Interpretation: guidelines for interpreting each interval of scores is given: very superior - mentally retarded.

Comments:

Appropriate Client Use: people for whom the test was standardized. It is a test of intelligence so caution should be used when interpreting it for occupations, education, and training.

Appropriate for Which Groups of People with Disabilities: generally those people who would not fall into the categories below.

Groups of People with Disabilities not Appropriate: people who were institutionalized for mental illness, people with traumatic brain injuries, people with severe behavioral or emotional problems, people with physical impairments which restrict responses to test items, people whose primary language is other than English."
+ http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&l...Nh4ENB42OVHgcE

As for the Raven's similarities test:
+ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's...ssive_Matrices
+ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...558f47dc222ade

These tests utilize more than what you have limited the frame to. Do not be so quick to ignore the full dynamic of these tests.

Basically what you are saying is that there is a correllation between Scientific, or materialistic minded people and their ability to score highly on a test that is meant to test rational and linear thought processes.

Religious beliefs usually coincide with the more non-linear intuitive thought processes, so it would seem to make sense that someone who leans more in the direction of religious belief would be less likely to score highly on a test of reasoning.

No. You did not read what I said. ACH thinking is not rational and linear thought processes and this is where we find the significance that I am focusing upon.

It seems that all you've managed to show is that the average human tends to lean either towards reason or intuition, and that most people do not have a balance between the two.

You are making prejudice remarks on these IQ tests; they test a lot more than this. Please consider the above to elaborate on the depths of ACH thinking.

I'd also like to point out that all of the correllative studies you cited have been done by scientists who more than likely are not particularly religious. I'm sure with the proper bias someone could come up with some good looking graphs showing a correllation between some perceived measure of intelligence and religious belief.

That is simply speculation. You have not provided any grounds for bias.

Furthermore, most of these cited articles are peer-reviewed and confounding.

Edit: Is your source the article in Skeptic? Don't you think a magazine dedicated to not believing in anything is a just a bit too biased for a balanced judgement of beliefs in general?

I already said, at the very beginning of my post, that I read an article by Dr. James Allan Cheyne. You cannot possibly argue that it is a bias because that just shows your ignorance to the magazine. The magazine has reverends writing and several people of faith. Furthermore, the last months magazine focused entirely on Christian origins conspiracy theories (that being the defense of Christianity against Atheists bombardment of conspiracies regarding religious conjuration.)
+ http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/.../vol15n01.html

I also thought of a few more holes in the theory. The available religions in the global society are stereotypically dogmatic and unyielding which is by definition opposed to critical thinking which is what you are comparing here. There are many people who believe that there is or may be something more than what materialism has to offer but do not believe in any of the established Religions. These people tend to associate more with Atheism especially since many people seem to believe that agnosticism is a subset of atheism.

So, in your first point, it just demonstrates that you are ignoring ACH thinking, which is not specifically critical thinking.

Also, it is a good point to say that Atheism is a implied by other beliefs. I mean, I do not explicitly consider my self Atheist but Humanist Existential. Thus, it is a bit misleading to even say that Atheism itself, alone, is a religious or belief doctrine itself. I think the idea is that, those doctrines that imply or include Atheism, are correlated with higher IQ (as those all encompassing beliefs integrate ACH thinking as opposed to direct dogmatic beliefs).

What do you think..?

~