IQ vs. Religiosity

[acelink]

If there's any truth to this, I think it would be because highly religous people devote their time to God more then to studying science. I don't think their is a difference between the 2 groups from birth, the only difference is what they do with their time. Personally I would rather go to heaven then win lots of awards, but thats me...

A lot of 'scientists' do devote their time to God. 

We had a small discussion in my Astronomy class about how astronomers started their studies within the bible.  Galileo is a prime example for this.  He was a devout Catholic who was excommunicated from the church.  The same happened to the philosopher Baruch de Spinoza... He is considered the "Atheist Jew".  And to countless other philosophers, scientists and other "high" iq persons.

I would be really interested to see how they are labeling people religiosity.  Who is labeling them/are they self labeling.  I could see a majority of high IQ persons being allocated to being less religious because their beliefs.  I could also see a majority of low IQ people being less modest as to their actual beliefs or believing blindly...


I'll read the article when I have time.  Right now I'm in my stats class listening to stuff I already know.

[Scaredgirl]

If there's any truth to this, I think it would be because highly religous people devote their time to God more then to studying science. I don't think their is a difference between the 2 groups from birth, the only difference is what they do with their time. Personally I would rather go to heaven then win lots of awards, but thats me...

A lot of 'scientists' do devote their time to God. 

We had a small discussion in my Astronomy class about how astronomers started their studies within the bible.  Galileo is a prime example for this.  He was a devout Catholic who was excommunicated from the church.  The same happened to the philosopher Baruch de Spinoza... He is considered the "Atheist Jew".  And to countless other philosophers, scientists and other "high" iq persons.

I would be really interested to see how they are labeling people religiosity.  Who is labeling them/are they self labeling.  I could see a majority of high IQ persons being allocated to being less religious because their beliefs.  I could also see a majority of low IQ people being less modest as to their actual beliefs or believing blindly...


I'll read the article when I have time.  Right now I'm in my stats class listening to stuff I already know.

They were asked:

How important is religion in your life?
A) very important,
B) somewhat important
C) not too important
D) not at all important

Then the same people took an IQ test which showed a correlation between IQ and how they answered to that question.

[Chinook]

does this study fail somehow?

Discuss.

Study fails because it has not even attempted to correct for other factors that may be far more important to either the IQ or Religiosity reported.

There are many factors that differ between Canada and The Ivory Coast beyond these two isolated data points so no causation can be determined.

[Scaredgirl]

does this study fail somehow?

Discuss.

Study fails because it has not even attempted to correct for other factors that may be far more important to either the IQ or Religiosity reported.

There are many factors that differ between Canada and The Ivory Coast beyond these two isolated data points so no causation can be determined.

I'm not sure what you mean but the study didn't compare different countries. It was done independently in each country, and in each country there was a clear correlation between IQ and Religiosity.

Hm.. I think what everyone needs to realize here is that this study wasn't done by a bunch of kids who don't know what they are doing. It was done by professionals who work with statistics and probably know 10 times more about that subject than anyone else here. I'm not saying they can't be wrong, or that the data gathering method cannot be wrong, but it's very unlikely.

Ask yourself this. Who do you trust more?

A) A published scientific study made by real scientist
B) A random person on the internet who knows better

[Hobnob5000]

Lol Scaredgirl, we weren't calling the results wrong or anything, we just found it interesting, and were reflecting that on our own knowledge.

[acelink]

I originally misread the graph.  The title is a little misleading.  IQ vs % who see religion as very important.

% that believe religion is very important = Ordinal Data
IQ = Ordinal Data

Creating a graph that is Ordinal/Ordinal is pretty stupid.  Not to mention that this graph multiple things going on--it has multiple 'beaches'.  Each country is its own 'beach' and should respectively have its own graph... combining them is dumb...

[acelink]

I made a few graphs of my own using excel.  See attached file.

2 of the graphs inside

IQ/%VIR per Country
X Axis: Country Y Axis:Blue=% of Total Population who find Religion Very Important Red=Average IQ

Decending by % Belief                           

Ascending by IQ                                   

I believe my histograms are better at representing the data than the line graph that was posted.  The graph they posted infers more than the data can support. 

NOTE: Make sure you understand the graphs are only representing % of people who consider themselves very religious.

I found this interesting article on the interwebz. It's a study made in multiple countries that examined the correlation between IQ and how important people see religion. Results are interesting because they clearly state that the more intelligent you are, the less likely it is that you are religious.

Should be:

I found this interesting article on the interwebz. It's a study made in multiple countries that examined the relationship between IQ and % of total population of a country that see religion as very important. The graph is interesting because of the correlation that is made... the higher your IQ, the less likely it is that you are/consider yourself VERY religious.

Sadly enough... you cannot infer too much from the graph they posted.  It was a great way to show some correlation in the data but that is it.  It also has too many 'beaches' mixed inside for any causation to be made.  The graph they posted is misleading.


Sorry for the double post... I don't know how to attach a file once I've already posted.

[Boingo]

This post will, of course, not answer once-and-for-all the importance of the relationship between national average IQ and the percentage of respondents who answered "very important" to the question of how important religion is in one's life on a survey.  But I think it adds a curious twist: It's all about sex.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201004/atheistic-liberals-are-smarter-funny-reason

I like this interpretation since it manages to infuriate both extremes in the debate-- the liberal "intelligentsia" have a promiscuous sex strategy (no surprises here) and the "dim" religious conservatives want to have lots of children (not exactly earth-shattering either.)

[Chinook]

I'm not sure what you mean but the study didn't compare different countries. It was done independently in each country, and in each country there was a clear correlation between IQ and Religiosity.

The study was done independently in each country and then the graph compares the results of those countries to other countries.
It is absolutely comparing different countries as presented.

Hm.. I think what everyone needs to realize here is that this study wasn't done by a bunch of kids who don't know what they are doing. It was done by professionals who work with statistics and probably know 10 times more about that subject than anyone else here. I'm not saying they can't be wrong, or that the data gathering method cannot be wrong, but it's very unlikely.

Ask yourself this. Who do you trust more?

A) A published scientific study made by real scientist
B) A random person on the internet who knows better

You don't know who is reading here, it is entirely possible that someone could have 10 times more knowledge on the topic than the persons running this study.

Real scientists make mistakes and omissions but other real scientists review their work and often point out those mistakes. A real scientist isn't worried about being trusted as a scientist, they are confident that their work will stand on its own.

[acelink]

This post will, of course, not answer once-and-for-all the importance of the relationship between national average IQ and the percentage of respondents who answered "very important" to the question of how important religion is in one's life on a survey.  But I think it adds a curious twist: It's all about sex.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201004/atheistic-liberals-are-smarter-funny-reason

I like this interpretation since it manages to infuriate both extremes in the debate-- the liberal "intelligentsia" have a promiscuous sex strategy (no surprises here) and the "dim" religious conservatives want to have lots of children (not exactly earth-shattering either.)

I don't know entirely about the affect of sex on IQ.  IQ is a very finicky subject as it is not an absolute measure of intelligence and there are multiple types of IQ that the IQ test does not evaluate.  I believe to some extent that the article is correct but more on the micro-level as compared to the macro-level world.

Culture/Religion are more important factors.  It is hard to explain the correlation but there is definite connection there.  A few examples are India, USA & Philippines.  (I don't know enough about the rest of the world to point out more examples).

India.  Religion = majority Hindu.  Hindu beliefs are all about pleasure and sex is pretty open. 
USA.  Culture.  United States originated from a very Victorian mentality and Christian based society.  Despite having church and state separate, our government was based upon a lot of Christian beliefs and often uses God.  "In God we trust" " "Manifest Destiny" and a lot of other core beliefs.
Philippines.  Very strong family culture.  Families are very close and they are 'bonded' by religion.

Religion and sex are very much related to each other.

[Jangoo]

You don't know who is reading here, it is entirely possible that someone could have 10 times more knowledge on the topic than the persons running this study.

Real scientists make mistakes and omissions but other real scientists review their work and often point out those mistakes. A real scientist isn't worried about being trusted as a scientist, they are confident that their work will stand on its own.

Amen to that.
Anyone who has ever done "real" science himself will know that scientists are only cooking with water too.

IQ is a very finicky subject as it is not an absolute measure of intelligence and there are multiple types of IQ that the IQ test does not evaluate. I believe to some extent that the article is correct but more on the micro-level as compared to the macro-level world.

Culture/Religion are more important factors.  It is hard to explain the correlation but there is definite connection there.

Amen to that too.
I meant to imply that when I asked earlier which factors and skills an IQ test does not measure and consequently what exactly the IQ-score is supposed to express.
In terms of real-life applicability it really doesn't have to say anything ... high IQ people may lack EQ, sociability, a sense for practical execution or even forms of intelligence that just don't get categorized as such within the testing-frames.
However, like many scores and ratings that are thrown out there by "real" scientists, IQ seems to sadly imply things like "better people", "useful people", "people that can get stuff done" ...

[Scaredgirl]

You don't know who is reading here, it is entirely possible that someone could have 10 times more knowledge on the topic than the persons running this study.

Real scientists make mistakes and omissions but other real scientists review their work and often point out those mistakes. A real scientist isn't worried about being trusted as a scientist, they are confident that their work will stand on its own.

Amen to that.
Anyone who has ever done "real" science himself will know that scientists are only cooking with water too.

Lets say you get sick. Do you trust a doctor, or some random forum guy? Sure the doctor can be wrong and the forum guy right, but most people would probably choose the doctor because he has studied medicine, as opposed to the anonymous forum guy who might be a janitor who likes to watch House M.D.

What I'm trying to say is that sure there's a possibility that Nobel prize winners are playing Elements and posting on this forum. Anything is possible. However I would bet big money that most of these "forum experts" are young students, rather than any actual scientists.