Woot; atheists are smarter than agnostics

[Beerina]

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.

That was the huge argument over The Bell Curve -- there were differences between skin color at first glance, but what was due to genetics, what was due to cultural differences (questions that whites can answer better because of slightly different culture) or even to cultural degradation, for lack of a better term, i.e. pervasive racism over generations had lead to a culture somewhat lacking in emphasis on education compared to whites (who lack compared to first generation Asians.)

Plus god only knows what else.

 

[EGarrett]

It's with whites only. Race complicates things. In the entire (versus analyzed) sample, the number of hispanics that were atheists was 0.

Race is not what complicates things. Race TENDING to be found alongside OTHER FACTORS that change IQ scores does not mean that RACE is the thing doing it, and to refer to RACE as the thing doing it implies something wrong.

Please try to speak accurately and not spread ignorance.

 

[Anakritis]

The present study examined whether IQ relates systematically to denomination and income within the framework of the g nexus bol,

Would someone direct me to reference for the "g nexus" as used in this study?

using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY97).

Does this seem like a limited (small) population to anyone else?

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.

Do these results account for natural increases in the IQ of "youth" involved in the educational process and do they account for those individuals who change ideology in that 5 year timespan?

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.

Am I the only one who has a problem with "speaking ontogenetically" about the "meaning" of this study?

 

[GreyICE]

Averages of over 100 and no error bars?

Color me skeptical.

 

[six7s]

It is always fascinating to see to what lengths proponents of pseudoscience will go in order to defend their bull.

If the glass slipper fits...

Would describing these relationships be worthwhile, or not?

I have often wondered what use IQ test results have in making informed decisions about individuals and/or 'markets'

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.

Chicken or egg?

My hunch (confirmation bias?) is that it would be the reverse; an accurate model of reality (a woo-less worldview) provides a consistent basis for accurate pattern recognition/forecasting (ain't that what IQ measures?)

 

[Lanzy]

Atheists feel superior to Agnostics the same way Christians feel superior to Atheists. using the same "logic" - we just know.

 

[Delvo]

Chicken or egg?

I hate that metaphor! No matter which of the two most common standard ideas of how things got here you believe, it's a spectacularly obvious and easy question to answer, so the meaning that is intended by the metaphor (supremely difficult or impossible question) is exactly the opposite of its actual nature! If you accept evolution, then the answer is obviously "neither", and if you believe in Biblical creation, then it's obviously "chicken first" because it says God created animals, not eggs. To have any trouble at all answering this question, you'd have to believe in some other story of how things got here, one which is so rare in our society that, almost invariably, neither the speaker of this metaphor nor his/her audience believes in it, so neither of them would have any trouble at all answering the question, so the metaphor doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean to either of them!

OK, I feel better now...

 

[six7s]

I hate that metaphor!

Fascinating! Seemingly irrelevant. But fascinating, nevertheless

 

[bpesta22]

Some more info on the study if anyone's interested.

The author indeed used only whites in the final analysis, as race confounds things-- there are race differences on both IQ and religious affiliations. Since the goal of this study was to examine the iq-religion link, it makes sense to control for race. One might question whether the data then generalize to non-whites (external validity), but using only whites here wouldn't diminish the internal validity of the study.

And, it's true, whites averaged higher on IQ than other races, which is why the means I reported above are > 100.

My bad on calling Hispanic a race; the author here does not, and instead uses the phrase "white non-hispanics" to describe his sample.

I misread the % of atheists whom are hispanic in what I reported above. It's not 0.

89% of atheists are white; 4% hispanic and 7% black-- sorry about that.

Roman catholics have about average IQs; baptists lower than average (I can confirm this with my own data at the state level where differences are very strong); jews higher than average (Episcopals have the highest IQ in the sample at 113.43).

Atheists and agnostics represent only 3% of the entire sample, but own 22% of the high IQs (> 120) in the sample.

On some of the replies here:

The g nexus is a Jensen idea based on the fact that g correlates with just about everything, including many physiological measures of brain efficiency on the one hand to social outcomes like education, income, crime and health on the other.

I don't think the Flynn effect has much to do with these data as they are cross sectional (all collected in the same year) and the flynn effect is not a g effect anyways (even flynn admits this).

I don't know how the NLSY defines or codes different religious beliefs. I suspect it was just check the box that represents your religion.

The SDs are reported in the article too if one wants to create error bars around the means; so too are stat tests of the mean differences. I didn't spend the time listing all this in the OP.

I'm not big on representative sampling. I think psychologists are great at measuring stuff and crappy at sampling. I suspect though that the NLSY was sampled to be highly representative of all american kids, but I will defer to anyone who has more info on it (this study is just borrowing data from the NLSY, so anyone can get the data and verify the analyses).

He does track changes from 12-18. Older kids get less religious, especially if they are smart. Re IQ changes over time; the scores might change but a person's rank order over time (relative to same age peers) changes very little.

 

[Delvo]

The author indeed used only whites in the final analysis

I had thought at first that the mention of race in this thread was merely a guess at why the average was over 100, which is why I brought up the other things that also correlate with higher or lower IQ. Now that I see it was the actual nature of the study, not a supposition, I see that my response to race as a "distraction" was pointless. It would have been a distraction if we were seeking an unknown explanation for a high average, but in this case, the average is exactly what's to be expected from the given sample.

One might question whether the data then generalize to non-whites (external validity), but using only whites here wouldn't diminish the internal validity of the study.

"Internal validity" = what they found is true of white people.

It does make me curious about the external side, though: is it still true of non-white? I can think of reasons to expect it not to be...

Atheists and agnostics represent only 3% of the entire sample, but own 22% of the high IQs (> 120) in the sample.

It's worth noting for the statistically uninitiated that any difference between two bell curves gets more drastic at the tails than in the middle, even if the difference between the averages is small, regardless of what subject is being examined. I'm tempted to illustrate by creating two simple, unlabelled, unnumbered bell curves superimposed in one image, offset left to right, showing how one line is only slightly higher than the other near the peak but multiple times as high at the tail (and becomes equally LOWER on the other side), but I suspect there are already examples to be found...

The g nexus is a Jensen idea based on the fact that g correlates with just about everything, including many physiological measures of brain efficiency on the one hand to social outcomes like education, income, crime and health on the other.

People who haven't looked into intelligence studies much wouldn't normally be familiar with g, so that should be explained by itself. It stands for "general", as in "general intelligence". It includes the full range of different mental abilities without breaking them down into separate unrelated talents. Conversationally, it can often be interchanged with IQ, but IQ tests aren't the only tests which measure it.

 

[TinfoilCat]

I have an IQ around 156 and that was tested when I was in early 7th grade. I do not consider myself "intelligent" by any means. The IQ test is meaningless. Intelligence cannot be measured by a mere test, it must be tested by how the person can fully utilize his/her intelligence.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Atheists feel superior to Agnostics the same way Christians feel superior to Atheists. using the same "logic" - we just know.

Yep. There's a certain smug satisfaction with looking at agnostics who don't believe in god and yet pretend not to be atheists. A little frustrating, but it's nice to be either more honest or better informed than those around you.


/troll

 

[bpesta22]

I guess I've been doing this for awhile now and I'm not sure how to interpret any single person's IQ. Unless it's way outside the bounds of normal, I'd probably ignore it and rely only on how the person interacted.

The problem, and partly why I find the area interesting enough to devote my day job to studying it, comes with aggregation. I don't know what to think of a person with a 120 IQ, or a 90, for example. However, give me 1000 people with 120s and compare them to 1000 others with 90s and the group differences will be profound.

To me, it seems like no other variable in social science comes close to moving groups of people around on important outcomes.

 

[CFLarsen]

If "hispanics" is not a race, but a group of "non-white hispanics" is compared to "white", it still means that "hispanic" is referred to as a race.

Or, of course: That a race group is compared to a non-race group. Yet, still claimed not to have overlap.

This is really crazy.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I guess I've been doing this for awhile now and I'm not sure how to interpret any single person's IQ. Unless it's way outside the bounds of normal, I'd probably ignore it and rely only on how the person interacted.

The problem, and partly why I find the area interesting enough to devote my day job to studying it, comes with aggregation. I don't know what to think of a person with a 120 IQ, or a 90, for example. However, give me 1000 people with 120s and compare them to 1000 others with 90s and the group differences will be profound.

To me, it seems like no other variable in social science comes close to moving groups of people around on important outcomes.

156 is way outside of normal. It's almost four standard deviations.

 

[Delvo]

If "hispanics" is not a race, but a group of "non-white hispanics" is compared to "white", it still means that "hispanic" is referred to as a race.

Or, of course: That a race group is compared to a non-race group. Yet, still claimed not to have overlap.

Well, by definition, a group that's "non-Hispanic" can't possibly have any overlap with "Hispanic". That's what "non" means.

 

[wollery]

156 is way outside of normal. It's almost four standard deviations.

And, more to the point, way outside the reliable testing range of a standard IQ test.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

And, more to the point, way outside the reliable testing range of a standard IQ test.

If I remember correctly, I got the same score on an IQ as a youngster of six or seven and considering the test had only about a hundred questions I think anyone who got them all right would have gotten the same. It's hardly a meaningful result.

The only question I got wrong was "Who invented the light bulb?" I said I didn't know, but it wasn't Edison - He invented the incandescent filament and he wasn't the first person to burn a filament and see it glow, either.

I'm pretty sure my high score had more to do with being an incurable bookworm compared to children my age than raw brainpower.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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

Since atheism is an ontological position and agnosticism is an epistemological position, it's possible to be an agnostic atheist, and I consider myself one of them. Unless I just outsmarted myself again.

 

[wollery]

If I remember correctly, I got the same score on an IQ as a youngster of six or seven and considering the test had only about a hundred questions I think anyone who got them all right would have gotten the same. It's hardly a meaningful result.

The only question I got wrong was "Who invented the light bulb?" I said I didn't know, but it wasn't Edison - He invented the incandescent filament and he wasn't the first person to burn a filament and see it glow, either.

I'm pretty sure my high score had more to do with being an incurable bookworm compared to children my age than raw brainpower.

That is most definitely not an IQ test question, since it relies on learned knowledge, not brainpower. If the test consisted of 100 questions like that then it was a completely useless way to measure IQ.

IQ tests should measure cognitive reasoning abilities, recall, pattern recognition, and logic. They should never contain a question that relies on learned knowledge.