IQ vs. Religiosity

[ratcharmer]

The average mean IQ score for a given test is 100. So if you give people in multiple countries the same (translated) test, you can measure them anyway.

Really, what makes you think that researchers try to compare different countries using tests calibrated with those countries as the mean? Do you actually think that academics are retarded?

So then you think you could score the same on a test that had just been translated from say, Korean?

And by the way, no, that isn't what they did. The IQ data is from the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations there's an article on wikipedia that will give you the outline of it. The authors "averaged and adjusted" data from multiple previously existing studies. For more than half the nations listed they had no data on them so they averaged the "IQ's" of neighboring countries

But seriously, this is NOT a scientifically valid study. They cite two sources for their data, and one of them (the one that they got their IQ data from) was generally shot down by the scientific community. The other was an online poll.

This was never published in any reputable journal. This is NOT science.

*edit* here's the link to the wikipedia article I mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_wealth_of_nations

The short version is that isn't real data. It's been edited/fudge factored to show trends where there aren't any.

[Hamish MacWolf]

His money was safe, because a mind capable of accepting illogical and unsubstantiated 'truths' would not be very successful in advanced mathematics.

This is ill-informed, mean-spirited and offensive.  I you were only trying for the latter 2.

For you reference, I've included a short list of some of the many religious people who happened to be "very successful in advanced mathematics," you may have heard of a few of them.  Some of them even invented new types of math:

Blaise Pascal (mathemetician, Catholic philosopher)
Rene Descartes (mathemetician, Roman Catholic)
Isaac Newton (mathemetician, physicist, theologian)
Nicolaus Copernicus (mathemetician, Catholic cleric)
Johannes Kepler (astonomer, mathemetician, used religious reasoning in his works)

Slow down Boingo, the bet required a fundementalist Christian, one who is capable of swallowing the ideas in the bible as literal ie. the earth is 6000 yrs old, Jesus was born of a virgin etc.  and passing a lie detector test.  Then sitting a test (SAT?) and beating Mr Sklansky (I found out more, but I'm still paraphasing).

I would like to question Newton, Pascal & Descartes, but it's quite impossible now... further I wonder if they would be open to the information that is currently available with regards to religion, and whether they would change their views?

Just to clarify - your two examples of "fundamentalism" are actually worlds apart. The first requires a literal, or near-so, reading of Genesis, and is linked to Creationism, which is debated, and even rejected, by many card-carrying Christians. The second is a cornerstone of Christian faith. Discard the concept of the Virgin birth, and one becomes a philosopher or sociologist analysing Jesus of Nazareth, as opposed to a believing Christian.

And a Catholic would be an even more ardent believer in the Virgin Birth than a Protestant, considering their stance on the Holy Mother.

[Hamish MacWolf]

[/size] Also - and apologies if this has been pointed out already and I have missed it - but all else aside, the study would be more valid if it were conducted within a single country, rather than comparing countries. Roughly the left-hand 50% of nations are third world, or at least, developing, where education and subsequently, measurable IQ, is incomparable to the nations on the right. Simultaneously, the majority of people there are subjected to a quality of life far harsher than those in the developed world, and far more ready to cry out for help to a supernatural source.

It also doesn't take into account nations like France, to the far right of the graph, which prides itself on being a fiercely secular nation, maintained by government policy.

Factors like these will affect the outcome, but not reflect thus. To gain a better comparison between IQ and religious belief, it would be preferable to gather results from a single nation, and preferably even subjects from similar geographic and socio-economic regions, thus avoiding data contamination.

All that said, props to Scaredgirl for encouraging a non-sectarian or overtly emotional debate!

[ratcharmer]

[/size] Also - and apologies if this has been pointed out already and I have missed it - but all else aside, the study would be more valid if it were conducted within a single country, rather than comparing countries. Roughly the left-hand 50% of nations are third world, or at least, developing, where education and subsequently, measurable IQ, is incomparable to the nations on the right. Simultaneously, the majority of people there are subjected to a quality of life far harsher than those in the developed world, and far more ready to cry out for help to a supernatural source.

It also doesn't take into account nations like France, to the far right of the graph, which prides itself on being a fiercely secular nation, maintained by government policy.

Factors like these will affect the outcome, but not reflect thus. To gain a better comparison between IQ and religious belief, it would be preferable to gather results from a single nation, and preferably even subjects from similar geographic and socio-economic regions, thus avoiding data contamination.

All that said, props to Scaredgirl for encouraging a non-sectarian or overtly emotional debate!

This is a valid point, but I don't think you fully understand how flawed the IQ data is.

For about two-thirds of the countries listed on that table no IQ testing actually took place.

Of the remainder many of the points are of dubious accuracy. At some points only children under 14 were tested, and that was then taken to be the national average. Other points were arbitrarily adjusted higher.

Next to the huge inaccuracies in the IQ data most other concerns are largely irrelevant.

If you don't believe me just look at the graph and do a rough estimate of the IQ of all the data points. You'll come up with something around 85. 85 is bordering on mentally handicapped. The average IQ is defined as 100.

I suppose I should mention that the Pew Test (the online poll I mentioned earlier) at least seems to  be legitimate. I've done some checking on it and it appears to be a fairly reputable source. I'm still not sure how they adjust for the error inherent in using an online poll in a third-world nation.

[Hamish MacWolf]

Oh, I don't dispute it. I was merely saying that even if the IQ scores were valid, there are impacting variables not considered here.