Woot; atheists are smarter than agnostics

bpesta22

Cereal Killer
bpesta22
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
4,942
Fear not fence sitters :blush:

You still fare better than believers, both conservative and liberal:


Atheists: Mean IQ 111.08
Agnostics: 109.13
Liberal religions: 107.26
Dogmatic religions: 105.19

From an in press article in Intelligence; sample sizes are between 100,000 and millions.


Here's the abstract:

The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97). Atheists score 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. Denominations differ significantly in IQ and income. Religiosity declines between ages 12 to 17. It is suggested that IQ makes an individual likely to gravitate toward a denomination and level of achievement that best fit his or hers particular level of cognitive complexity. Ontogenetically speaking this means that contemporary denominations are rank ordered by largely hereditary variations in brain efficiency (i.e. IQ). In terms of evolution, modern Atheists are reacting rationally to cognitive and emotional challenges, whereas Liberals and, in particular Dogmatics, still rely on ancient, pre-rational, supernatural and wishful thinking.
 
So where in the paper do they make corrections for confounding factors?
 
Must've drawn their entire sample from Lake Woebegone. (Aren't IQ scores designed to put 100 at the mean and median?)
 
Perhaps more to the point, how were they measuring the religious beliefs of the participants? If it was self identity then the study is fairly seriously flawed to begin with.

And what about those of us who are agnostic atheists?
 
It's with whites only. Race complicates things. In the entire (versus analyzed) sample, the number of hispanics that were atheists was 0.

I'm being tongue in cheek here with the thread title; it's less than a 2 point difference, so the effect size is really small. But, with a million or so data points, it's significant.

Still, it seems more and more articles are coming out showing links between IQ and religious beliefs. I have one that's under review now.

Curious what people think here: Is there any value to science that shows links between literalist religious beliefs and negative outcomes? Suppose biblical literalists do worse in school, or are more likely to have premature babies, or be on welfare.

Is this knowledge useful, either at a basic-science level (used to derive theories about religious belief, for example) or even as applied practical knowledge?

Would describing these relationships be worthwhile, or not?
 
Having "whites only" will still mean that the average score should be 100.

Unless it is argued that "whites" consistently score above 100, of course.
 
There's no mathematical law that says that even a large set of IQ scores must average to 100. What happens is that the tests are re-normalized every few years to compensate for the Flynn effect. So the fact that a particular data set shows an average test score of over 100 doesn't necessarily indicate a flaw.

Also, it's entirely possible that some exclusion criteria were at work here. People with serious mental handicaps may not have been able to participate in the study, either because they can't give informed consent or because they simply can't answer the religion questions coherently; if you throw out some of the "bottom end" of the bell curve, then of course you'll get a mean above 100.
 
CFLarsen said:
Unless it is argued that "whites" consistently score above 100, of course.
Click to expand...

Is that hard to believe? The data indicate that some minority groups--blacks, in particular--are at a disadvantage in IQ. There is no other minority group which could account for the difference in the other direction, so it would have to be whites which score above 100 if the average is to be 100.

- Dr. Trintignant

PS: Of course, this says nothing about the utility of using IQ to predict intelligence in a more general sense or success in life, or where the source of the difference is. The data just say that on a particular set of tests, whites score better than blacks.
 
The basic idea of IQ is that, in a representative group, it will show a Bell curve distribution. If it doesn't, the group isn't representative of a population. You won't get a Bell curve at CERN.

Unless, like I said, it is argued that white people are smarter than blacks. Which Stephen Jay Gould and others so eloquently debunked.

One of the problems with the quotients changing is that the number isn't followed by a year. You could have an IQ of 96 in 1978, which would be equivalent to an IQ of 105 in 2008 (since they go up by ca. 3 points every 10 years). The problems this creates for comparative studies are more than enough to dismiss IQ tests altogether. The problems this creates for the individual are far more devastating: If you took an IQ test when you were in high school, or started a job, it will follow you throughout your life: We don't look at what year the IQ test was taken - all we do is stick to the number itself.

That means it doesn't pay to be tested when you are young: It pays to wait as long as possible, and hope for the best.

On the other hand, the Flynn Effect can also be to your advantage: Take many tests, as early as possible, and stick to the one that gives you the highest score. Then, refuse to take a new test, but keep adding 3 points to the best one every 10 years. If you live really long, you could be an Einstein when you die! If you can convince your future employer, of course:

Employer: "You have an IQ of 98? Sorry, mate! No job for you."

Job seeker: "But....this was 40 years ago! I now have an IQ of 110!"

Employer: "Enjoy the bread line."
 
How were the groups defined exactly?
I´m an atheist because I do not believe in god(s) and an agnostic because I do not know if there are any. Same goes for a lot of people. The other way round is also possible. Someone believes in god(s), but does not claim to know.
If the study does not account for this, it´s flawed from the beginning.
 
CFLarsen said:
Unless, like I said, it is argued that white people are smarter than blacks. Which Stephen Jay Gould and others so eloquently debunked.
Click to expand...

That is a non sequitur. Again, the data show that whites score higher than blacks on IQ tests (although the gap seems to be decreasing). This, of course, has nothing to do with whether whites are "smarter" in a more general sense (whatever "smarter" really means, anyway) than blacks; nor does it imply that there is a genetic component to it.

CFLarsen said:
You could have an IQ of 96 in 1978, which would be equivalent to an IQ of 105 in 2008 (since they go up by ca. 3 points every 10 years).
Click to expand...

Not necessarily; it could be that the Flynn Effect is not due to individuals improving their IQ, but rather that new generations of children have higher IQs than their predecessors due to, say, better nutrition. In that case, an individual's reported IQ may well decrease over time as the tests are renormalized.

- Dr. Trintignant
 
CFLarsen said:
Employer: "You have an IQ of 98? Sorry, mate! No job for you."

Job seeker: "But....this was 40 years ago! I now have an IQ of 110!"
Click to expand...

Somewhat amusingly, I interviewed a guy for a position yesterday, and he reported a "160 IQ" on his CV. The information was neither requested nor desired, and he's the only person in memory that actually supplied an IQ. He didn't get the job, but we did laugh a little afterward at his expense. I guess if you're going to claim to be 4 standard deviations from the mean, you'd better back it up somehow.

- Dr. Trintignant
 
CFLarsen said:
Having "whites only" will still mean that the average score should be 100.
Click to expand...
That's simply not an accurate description of IQ score distribution. People of Eurasian ancestry (not counting Hispanics, who are in general a combination of white and Amerindian, which is an offshoot from eastern Asian) average a few points above 100. Hispanic and black people average in the upper 80s and 90s.

If there's anything to debate, it's not whether that's the case, but why. Even those who fight against perceived racism don't claim that it isn't the case; they just argue for some causes of the situation (such as continuing unfair treatment or lingering economic and psychological side-effects of history) and against others (mainly, that the races are born with it).

CFLarsen said:
Unless, like I said, it is argued that white people are smarter than blacks. Which Stephen Jay Gould and others so eloquently debunked.
Click to expand...
Actually, he didn't. That topic was one on which he was so invested emotionally that he really threw science and logic out the window. His arguments were based on really shallow misrepresentations of basic entry-level statistics, false claims about his opponents and what their claims were, emotional appeals, and such. It was a low point in his career as far as science is concerned, although certain ideologues might consider it a high point ideologically. But even he didn't go as far as to claim that the obvious difference just isn't there at all; he just sought an acceptable explanation of it and advocated how we should react to it and deal with it.

But that's all irrelevant anyway, because the whole race issue is just a small sample of a bigger picture here, and seems to distract from the rest of it. It's only one of a bunch of factors on which people with one trait have higher IQs and people with the counterpart trait have lower IQs. Tall people have higher IQs than the short. Income scales up and down together with IQ. Jail time and likelihood of paying fines and penalties scale up and down inversely to IQ. People who live in different places have more similar IQs to their neighbors than to people outside their neighborhoods. Office workers have higher IQs than factory or warehouse workers but lower than those who work in hospitals. Women who bear children without the father sticking around have lower IQs than those who bear no children or who do so with the father sticking around (and the same is true of their children and the children's fathers). Energetic, active, motivated people have higher IQs than the lazy or pessimistic. Bosses have higher IQs than the people in the ranks below them. Different levels of education are attained by people with different IQs. Users of non-medicinal drugs have lower IQs. Immigrants have lower IQs than the natives of the country they moved to...
 
Last edited:
It is always fascinating to see to what lengths proponents of pseudoscience will go in order to defend their bull.
 
bpesta22 said:
It's with whites only. Race complicates things. In the entire (versus analyzed) sample, the number of hispanics that were atheists was 0.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added to illustrate your FAIL.

Hispanic is not a race, if there is any such thing as human race at all. There are white Hispanics, black Hispanics, American Indian Hispanics, Asian Hispanics, and all of them have married into or been adopted by my extended family - all of whom are Cuban by birth or descended from Cuban immigrants who all speak Spanish as a native language, eat tostones, drink colladas, and show up for Nchebeuna to eat roast pork and discuss whether or not Castro's already dead while berating me for not being fluent in Spanish.

Do I need to draw you a diagram as to why Hispanic and White are not mutually exclusive?

Furthermore, if there are zero atheist Hispanics in the sample, then I question whether the sample is representative of Hispanics at all. The number of Hispanic atheists isn't something I can state with certainty, but it's definitely non-zero - I'm one.
 
Last edited:
Lots of good points raised here; but alas I have real world work and other stupid busy things to do.

I hope to address these posts later tonight, but thanks for replying!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom