7 ms·

IQ and Religion

18 points by pooriaazimi 14y ago

Tichy 14y ago
Does that graph imply that for example the mean IQ in Angola is 69? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
- mxfh 14y ago
  "For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62. To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of 72. The figures for Colombia, Peru, and Singapore were arrived at in a similar manner." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Na... Seriously? If that's not enough: "This is not so much science, then, as a social crusade. The Pioneer Fund of America, champion of many dubious causes in the past, will obtain little credit from having assisted this one. The myriad corrections and estimates aside, this is a blast from another age, an old-fashioned attempt to give an imperial mindset biological validity." http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html
cup 14y ago
This is a really ridiculous post. If I understand correctly, the methedology consisted of graphing data taken from two seperate studies. While cross sectional studies are useful, ones like these really do nothing but inflame an already controversial and sensitive topic. I think the real issue isn't religion, which seems to be by many 'the enemy' of science, but health and poverty. Countries with low 'iq levels', which I loathe to say, also seem to be countries that are poor, war torn or ex - colonies who have been economically and socially raped. This is true junk science which I feel is only to the interest of people who are trying to push the growing notion that religion has no place in science, something I, as a Muslim, disagree with. My religion, naturally, is my source of bias.
- SimHacker 14y ago
  And your religion is junk, without the science.
swombat 14y ago
Whether or not (as implied by the article) stupid people tend to be more religious, is largely immaterial. All these attacks of religion from the point of view of science or intelligence fail to acknowledge the fact that it (religion) fulfils basic human psychological needs - such as the need for purpose and meaning, the need for structure and ritual, or the need for social cohesion - which science (rightly) does not give a shit about. Science is not about those things, but those things are basic human needs (as abundantly demonstrated by the large populations of believers). So why oppose science to religion, when science is sure to lose on the sine-qua-non criteria of providing for those basic needs? Instead, if one wants to "defeat" religion, something else should be opposed. Perhaps a better kind of religion, that fulfils these basic human psychological needs without all the superstition and the side-effects.
- ThePherocity 14y ago
  Please never ever say religion fills a need. It fills a want. No part of being human needs religion any more than they need crack cocaine. Id argue the effects are similar on the brain as well.
  - WayneDB 14y ago
    Please never say that religion has never filled a need. You don't know that. Blind atheism is just as bad, if not worse, than organized theism. The problems start when people think they know something and they really don't.
    - ThePherocity 14y ago
      Religion has never filled a need. Religion is a placebo. It purports to do something, and cannot fulfill on its promise. No one, not one human needs a placebo. They NEED air to breath or they will die, they NEED shelter or they will freeze to death. They WANT religion for a number of different reasons, but not one reason is because without it they will die.
      - 14y ago
ThePherocity 14y ago
A fallacy built off a contrivance. Good job.
corry 14y ago
But of course correlation != causation. My guess: the real independent variable is wealth, so wealthier countries (e.g. the secular West, with the exception of USA) will have both higher IQ and lower religiosity. It seems obvious to me that long-time wealthy countries would have higher IQ scores (especially with the immigration boost - wealthiest countries can attract the smartest immigrants). If this is all the case, the deeper question is why increasing wealth reduces religiosity. (Edit: What's funny about this question is that you can answer it either way to fit theist or atheist narratives - e.g. "it's because people in wealthy countries become insulated to our true reliance-on-God nature" vs. "only poor people need to resort to fanciful beliefs to make themselves feel better".)
- api 14y ago
  "If this is all the case, the deeper question is why increasing wealth reduces religiosity." Because a big part of religion is coping with a painful, short, and often violent life.
capex 14y ago
This seems to be saying: 'If you are religious, there is a good chance you are stupid'. Adding insult to the injury is country based classification of human intelligence. For 'Gods' sake, please liberate yourself from these notions and live a life of thinking-freedom. I have seen so many highly intelligent and successful people in my life who are also religious.
Radim 14y ago
Seems to have been flagged. Fascinating how HN, of all places, is enraged by presenting some raw data. If you question the data or methodology, just say so, improve on it. The article quotes its sources (which btw do seem to be somewhat controversial... unsurprisingly). But if you just dislike the data, well, tough. Don't stone the author, please.
- Tichy 14y ago
  The data seems to be bunk, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372627
api 14y ago
A big part of why the U.S. is an outlier in all these religiosity vs X graphs is because in the vast majority of the U.S. there is no forum for community or social cohesion apart from religion. Outside of the church, most of American culture is utterly asocial. This is only somewhat accidental, though. There is a long history of stealth or not-so-stealth repression of non-religious social and cultural phenomena in the US. Virtually any form of human cultural expression outside of religion tends to be classed as "deviant" or "counterculture" and at least discouraged. The mechanisms are occasionally overt, as with serious countercultures, but more often take subtile and complex forms involving combinations of social discouragement, media vilification, conformism, zoning regulations, anti-social urban development patterns, etc. This isn't true across all of America. In the places where it isn't true (e.g. San Francisco, New York, etc.), the religiosity vs. X numbers look a lot more like other developed countries. In the "flyover country," fascist social conservatism represses all non-religious expression.

IQ and Religion

18 points by pooriaazimi 14y ago

Tichy 14y ago

Does that graph imply that for example the mean IQ in Angola is 69? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

mxfh 14y ago
"For 104 of the 185 nations, no studies were available. In those cases, the authors have used an estimated value by taking averages of the IQs of neighboring or comparable nations. For example, the authors arrived at a figure of 84 for El Salvador by averaging their calculations of 79 for Guatemala and 88 for Colombia. Including those estimated IQs, the correlation of IQ and GDP is 0.62. To obtain a figure for South Africa, the authors averaged IQ studies done on different ethnic groups, resulting in a figure of 72. The figures for Colombia, Peru, and Singapore were arrived at in a similar manner." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#National_IQ_estimates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Na... Seriously? If that's not enough: "This is not so much science, then, as a social crusade. The Pioneer Fund of America, champion of many dubious causes in the past, will obtain little credit from having assisted this one. The myriad corrections and estimates aside, this is a blast from another age, an old-fashioned attempt to give an imperial mindset biological validity." http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html

cup 14y ago

This is a really ridiculous post. If I understand correctly, the methedology consisted of graphing data taken from two seperate studies. While cross sectional studies are useful, ones like these really do nothing but inflame an already controversial and sensitive topic. I think the real issue isn't religion, which seems to be by many 'the enemy' of science, but health and poverty. Countries with low 'iq levels', which I loathe to say, also seem to be countries that are poor, war torn or ex - colonies who have been economically and socially raped. This is true junk science which I feel is only to the interest of people who are trying to push the growing notion that religion has no place in science, something I, as a Muslim, disagree with. My religion, naturally, is my source of bias.

SimHacker 14y ago
And your religion is junk, without the science.

swombat 14y ago

Whether or not (as implied by the article) stupid people tend to be more religious, is largely immaterial. All these attacks of religion from the point of view of science or intelligence fail to acknowledge the fact that it (religion) fulfils basic human psychological needs - such as the need for purpose and meaning, the need for structure and ritual, or the need for social cohesion - which science (rightly) does not give a shit about. Science is not about those things, but those things are basic human needs (as abundantly demonstrated by the large populations of believers). So why oppose science to religion, when science is sure to lose on the sine-qua-non criteria of providing for those basic needs? Instead, if one wants to "defeat" religion, something else should be opposed. Perhaps a better kind of religion, that fulfils these basic human psychological needs without all the superstition and the side-effects.

ThePherocity 14y ago
Please never ever say religion fills a need. It fills a want. No part of being human needs religion any more than they need crack cocaine. Id argue the effects are similar on the brain as well.
- WayneDB 14y ago
  Please never say that religion has never filled a need. You don't know that. Blind atheism is just as bad, if not worse, than organized theism. The problems start when people think they know something and they really don't.
  - ThePherocity 14y ago
    Religion has never filled a need. Religion is a placebo. It purports to do something, and cannot fulfill on its promise. No one, not one human needs a placebo. They NEED air to breath or they will die, they NEED shelter or they will freeze to death. They WANT religion for a number of different reasons, but not one reason is because without it they will die.
    - 14y ago

ThePherocity 14y ago

A fallacy built off a contrivance. Good job.

corry 14y ago

But of course correlation != causation. My guess: the real independent variable is wealth, so wealthier countries (e.g. the secular West, with the exception of USA) will have both higher IQ and lower religiosity. It seems obvious to me that long-time wealthy countries would have higher IQ scores (especially with the immigration boost - wealthiest countries can attract the smartest immigrants). If this is all the case, the deeper question is why increasing wealth reduces religiosity. (Edit: What's funny about this question is that you can answer it either way to fit theist or atheist narratives - e.g. "it's because people in wealthy countries become insulated to our true reliance-on-God nature" vs. "only poor people need to resort to fanciful beliefs to make themselves feel better".)

api 14y ago
"If this is all the case, the deeper question is why increasing wealth reduces religiosity." Because a big part of religion is coping with a painful, short, and often violent life.

capex 14y ago

This seems to be saying: 'If you are religious, there is a good chance you are stupid'. Adding insult to the injury is country based classification of human intelligence. For 'Gods' sake, please liberate yourself from these notions and live a life of thinking-freedom. I have seen so many highly intelligent and successful people in my life who are also religious.

Radim 14y ago

Seems to have been flagged. Fascinating how HN, of all places, is enraged by presenting some raw data. If you question the data or methodology, just say so, improve on it. The article quotes its sources (which btw do seem to be somewhat controversial... unsurprisingly). But if you just dislike the data, well, tough. Don't stone the author, please.

Tichy 14y ago
The data seems to be bunk, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372627 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4372627

api 14y ago

A big part of why the U.S. is an outlier in all these religiosity vs X graphs is because in the vast majority of the U.S. there is no forum for community or social cohesion apart from religion. Outside of the church, most of American culture is utterly asocial. This is only somewhat accidental, though. There is a long history of stealth or not-so-stealth repression of non-religious social and cultural phenomena in the US. Virtually any form of human cultural expression outside of religion tends to be classed as "deviant" or "counterculture" and at least discouraged. The mechanisms are occasionally overt, as with serious countercultures, but more often take subtile and complex forms involving combinations of social discouragement, media vilification, conformism, zoning regulations, anti-social urban development patterns, etc. This isn't true across all of America. In the places where it isn't true (e.g. San Francisco, New York, etc.), the religiosity vs. X numbers look a lot more like other developed countries. In the "flyover country," fascist social conservatism represses all non-religious expression.