Article here:

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/26/are-religious-people-really-less-smart-on-average-than-atheists/

"As predicted, the atheists performed better overall than the religious participants, even after controlling for demographic factors like age and education. Agnostics tended to place between atheists and believers on all tasks. In fact, strength of religious conviction correlated with poorer cognitive performance. However, while the religious respondents performed worse overall on tasks that required reasoning, there were only very small differences in working memory."

Interesting read. Good research approach. Very clever.

HH =)

Maybe not so much "less smart", but "more compartmentalized".

They have a hard time thinking outside their box, which can limit their ability to reason, hence, appearing "less smart".

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe not so much "less smart", but "more
> compartmentalized".
>
> They have a hard time thinking outside their box,
> which can limit their ability to reason, hence,
> appearing "less smart".


That's a good way to put it .

We have Mormons who see the Mayan ruins that have no Nephite markers at all and yet draw the conclusion that they "could be" and "probably are," the relics of a great Nephite civilization. If this doesn't cause the Frontal Lobe to be closed for business, I don't know what does.


Pre-concieved notions hamper reason. Who has more preconceived notions than the religious? And the more religious, the more the preconceived notions are set in concrete. The more concrete the notions the more apt to cherry-pick instead of consider all data.


So I have heard religious people say that science doesn't matter because what they believe aligns with their God and therefore science must be wrong because their God can't be. Cherry-picking is mutually exclusive with reason. And there fore, I am mutually exclusive with the religious. We can have brunch together or socialize a bit, but after that my Frontal Lobe starts to get antsy.

"Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.[1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias is a variation of the more general tendency of apophenia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Apophenia? Wow. I though for sure you made that one up, haha. Had to look it up.

Thanks for the new word and for the rest of your post. Nice.

The study appears to have concluded that the reason for the "deficit" is that religious people rely more heavily on "intuition" than on "logic," so when there's a mental task that they think can be solved with "intuition" (but really can't, and requires logic), they use "intuition" and thus fail at the task.

And that on tasks with no apparent solution from "intuition," they do just as well or nearly so as atheists and agnostics.

I'd kinda like to know what those tasks were...:)

And if "intuition" as they describe it means the same thing as when mormons say, "I prayed about the book of mormon and got a feeling it was true!"

My brain surgeon is a famous genius who has saved many lives. He gave a lecture to a auditorium of admirers and showed pictures of many brains. He pointed out that different people have larger and smaller brain areas for different activities. Of interest to me was the area of the brain centered on spirituality and religion. This is very large for some people, indicating that they have a great need and interest in religion. This stems from ancient days when religion played a part in forming group identity. Cult-like groups survived better than single minded, self directed individuals.

This isn't as necessary today, but the brain structure survives. We can't do surgeries on all of these people to take away their need for religion. Most humans need it and will continue to need religion during our lift times. We have to respect this need which is as important to these people as food or sex.

“ we have to respect this need”......no we don’t. Especially if part of their need is that we must conform to their way of thinking and acting.

Acknowledge...yes. Respect? No.

I respect religious people's need for religion but I insist that they show similar respect that I don't want or need such a thing in my life. Remember, I'm the one who sprayed mishie boys with a garden hose for not respecting my right to keep religion out of my house.

Perhaps, but not in a significant way. Even with the most extreme examples cited in this self-selected group of Internet users, the differences fall just a bit outside the standard margin of error for most IQ tests.

But regardless of its veracity, open access Internet studies are fun, aren't they?

Actually it was 63,000 people. The average IQ test has a norming sample of just over 3,600 people. This self-selected sample was HUGE.

And it is a peer reviewed study. See the original article here:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02191/full

TMSH- "The differences fall just outside the margin of error"

This reflects that it is significant. IN other words, sampling and measurement error can NOT account for the differences in data.

It does not prove that religionists are less intelligent per se. It does reflect weakness in some factors of intelligent, but just as strong in other areas.

HH =)

Well, my understanding is that a swing of a few points one direction or another is virtually imperceptible in most IQ ranges, and the same individual taking different tests will often deliver a range of results as well. IQ tests are extremely subjective.

I do believe that those actually acquainted with this study who come away with the conclusion, "this explains why religious people are so stupid" are inviting questions regarding their intelligence.

The most stunningly brilliant man I know - a physicist by profession - is also the Stake Patriarch.

He is tall, and has a grim, stern, rather forbidding countenance - but if you can get past that, he is one of the nicest people I have ever met. His late wife was a dear friend of mine.

I run into him now and again at the local library. We are both voracious readers. He knows that I left the church long ago, but that isn't an issue. We will invariably park ourselves in the chairs at the library and chat for a while, comparing notes on what we are currently reading. We catch up on kids and grandkids.

I remember sitting in his Gospel Doctrines class, occasionally asking ridiculous questions (my TBM husband was appalled) like, "Did those angels have to hire special tailors, to custom-fit their robes, around those wings?" I would ask with a straight face, but dear old Bob realized that I was just trying to lighten the severity of the subject, and he loosened up.

Because there is nothing but integrity about him, whether it comes to his intellect or his religious beliefs, I like and respect this man very much.

Western religion as I know it devalues reason as it encourages obedience--oil and water. This is nothing to do with intelligence, but goes to a deeper place in our own personal value systems.

This made me become curious as to how Buddhism related to reason and as I was looking at various articles I found this phrase, "Only on this basis can a dialogue between faith and reason produce true and lasting value for humankind."


A need for interface between faith and reason? I think the very idea of that answers the question. There is only a need for faith when there is a lack of reason. This quote seems like faith is begging for respect. Reasoning has little use for faith, but Faith has a need to devalue reason.

The big question is not regarding intelligence. The big question is why do people choose faith over reason? There is a choice. You can't have both. Why go with believing in things not seen over trusting your own ability to process information? Why limit yourself and disrespect yourself like that?

On the other hand, isn't reasoning having faith in yourself rather than faith in things outside yourself, things unknowable? Faith in yourself is the only dialogue we need between reason and faith.

You stated, “ The big question is why do people choose faith over reason?”.....because it’s easier to do what you’re told rather than investigate your many options and decide for yourself. It’s an intellectual easy way out.

Yes. We start life answering to authority. First our parents, then teachers. We start life with relinquished control. We get used to it. Don't even think about it.

Some people cut the apron strings--which is a great right of passage--and some don't.

I left the Mormon church and religion as much as a by-product of claiming myself for myself as anything else I think. I surprised myself because I had always been the most obedient.

I have some more apron strings I would like to cut, but it's much more difficult when it comes to government. :)

Rather than answering to authority, there are a few who would rather question authority. Obviously, they (me) won’t last long in the church.

I don’t know.

Some people read the Book of Mormon and take it seriously. Others have to bury their face in a hat to keep from giggling.

I would think it depends on what religion you're talking about.

Jews are among the most intelligent on the planet. They make up app 1% of the population, and hold 24% of Nobel prizes in all fields, science is at the top of them.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jews are among the most intelligent on the planet.
> They make up app 1% of the population, and hold
> 24% of Nobel prizes in all fields, science is at
> the top of them.

Well, um...

Jewish culture has for a long time valued and promoted education, including higher education.
That leads to a high % of Jews having higher education.
Which is what is needed to win Nobel prizes.

It's not so much "intelligence" as it is that cultural promotion of lifelong education.

That's highly admirable. And very "intelligent." But it doesn't mean Jews are more intelligent than others.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jewish culture has for a long time valued and
> promoted education, including higher education.
> That leads to a high % of Jews having higher
> education.
> Which is what is needed to win Nobel prizes.
>
> It's not so much "intelligence" as it is that
> cultural promotion of lifelong education.
>
> That's highly admirable. And very "intelligent."
> But it doesn't mean Jews are more intelligent than
> others.

I was born a non-Jew, but I had a Jewish "uncle" who never actually married my aunt, but whose influence has been EXTREMELY important throughout my life...I went all the way from my first days in elementary school, through high school, with a minority (but an extremely impressive and important minority) of Jewish peers...I became part of an industry (and then, later, ANOTHER industry) where Jews are a technical minority in numbers, but are ubiquitous...and I became a Jew as an adult...

...and I have a somewhat different take, and I think it is due to several different factors.

Jewish culture has always very highly valued logical argument and thinking...as much education as is available at that time and place...and "significant others" who are extremely, to extremely-plus, intelligent (to the point where, historically, a highly-intelligent but economically poor boy or young man was VERY likely to be recruited to marry a woman whose family was, by the standards of that time, well-to-do or above...with the idea that the marriage would produce more children of higher-than-average intelligence, with some "geniuses," by our standards today, in the mix). As far back as it is possible for us to understand historically, Jews have typically selected marriage partners who are, comparatively, of markedly higher-than-average intelligence (however that has been measured at any particular time). In other words, there has "always" been a very conscious Jewish bias towards intelligence when picking future mates.

Also: One of the foundational bases of Jewish culture is logical debate, and (with great parental excitement and joy when this appears) kids begin participating in this kind of debating from very close to the beginnings of their verbal lives...so Jewish kids grow up not only "debating" (in a logical/"legal" sense) bedtimes, and whether they should have an extra cookie or not, or go on a particular adventure or not...they are learning (sometimes by explicit, spoken instructions on how to improve their arguments) HOW to debate more effectively. This has GIGANTIC effects on the ability of those kids to understand what they are being taught academically, on their grades in school, IQ tests, SAT tests, law school admission tests, and graduate degrees (and, sometimes, Nobel Prizes, etc.) later in these kids' lives.

With the Jewish generations going back to biblical days all selecting (to some degree or another) the future parents of their future children according to intelligence level, this does result in what once were, at best, marginally more intelligent people becoming, as a total group, increasingly intelligent (and educated) as we approach modern, and now contemporary, times.

I don't think Jews (back when they were forming as an identifiable group) necessarily started out more intelligent than the non-Jewish peoples who lived around them, but I do think that the thirty [???] or so generations between "back then" and "now," over those thousands of years, has produced a group of people who are, compared to the accepted norms, "more" intelligent than the macro group they live within. (This is also true of many Asians as well. In the case of Asians who, as a group, are more intelligent than non-Asians, the answer is probably the amount of fish earlier generations, and up to now, ate when compared to the rest of the diets of that time period. We do know now that increased fish intake does physiologically affect brain structure and functioning in positive directions from in utero on, throughout a given individual's life. On the other hand, Koreans were building "manual," but extremely sophisticated, computers centuries ago, so it just may be that Asians began with superior genetic material during extremely early times in human history.)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2018 11:11PM by Tevai.

Thank you Tevai for your insightful take on what makes Jewish culture highly adaptive, and in terms of intelligence - above average on par in general.

My Hebrew grandmother used to jest but also meant when she said that God didn't bless her family with looks or beauty so much as intelligence. She wasn't really kidding.

When some people are born with both, it's a bonus.

The Jewish genes ran strong through her line - her mother's parents were Ashkenazi Jews born of first generation immigrants from Germany. Our German ancestors hobnobbed with the Mendellsohns (Moses the philosopher,) the Baron de Rothschild family (both families intermarried into ours,) and were at the center of Jewish life going back centuries. They prized learning for its own sake.

But what came first? Kolob believes education increases IQ. I believe it goes both ways.

Plus, I know many an educated idiot. Too many to count. Likewise, Jewish contributions to humanity are too numerous to list. In proportion to their/our population they are at the top of the list in terms of cutting edge technology and educational advances.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2018 05:21PM by Amyjo.

we (at least I) used to think of "intelligence" as being accurately measured in a rather simplistic, linear way;

hopefully All of us (at least those on this board) don't think that anymore.

as most people on this board! I worked with Ph.D.s in chemistry and science, some of the brightest, who worked on the propellant that launched the space shuttle and missles, etc.

Many of them still believed. I tend to wonder what their level of belief was other than they were quite active in the lds church. Some of them should have definitely been in higher leadership as they had emotional intelligence, too, but I was shocked by who became bishops, etc., and who did not. My boss at Thiokol was a counselor under my uncle, who was the bishop. My uncle must have had some intelligence because he became quite wealthy, but he couldn't give a talk worth a damn. He sounded stupid. I had someone ask me if he had dementia. My boss was much smarter than him.

Some of them I tend to believe were more into the church in terms of following in the footsteps of their families. That is why I'm sure my dad was mormon as his parents were mormon.

One of the guys I worked with was a mathematician who converted to the LDS, but he and his wife both ended up leaving it (and divorcing).

I don't think we can make an overall judgement on how smart people are by if they are mormon or not. I tend to think more with intuition and not logic STILL, but somehow I found my way out.

Do religious people become stupid or do stupid people become religious?

Speaking of Nobel prize winners, the vast majority have been religious.

With non-religious coming in at a distant second: "By one estimate, between 1901-2000 about 10.5% of all laureates, and 35% of those in Literature, fall in this category.[3] According to the same estimate between 1901-2000 Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers have won 8.9% of the prizes in Medicine, 7.1% in Chemistry, 5.2% in Economics, 4.7% in Physics, and 3.6% in Peace." ~ Wikipedia

First of all, trusting Wikipedia is not usually smart. Second, it depends on what your defenition of "religious" is. Virtually all statistics on mormonism, roman catholicism and islam include me because I was baptized in both churches and live in a muslim-majority country.

By the same token, I don't think anyone who's an expert in medicine, chemistry or physics takes any scripture seriously. They may be RINOs: religious in name only.

Third , your source talks about Nobel Prizes in Economics, while no such thing exists. The Nobel Memorial Prize in Econmic Sciences is not awarded by the Swedish or Norwegian Nobel Institues nor paid by it. It has been awarded since 1969 by the National Bank of Sweden and has nothing to do with the real Nobel Prizes which were established in 1895.

That last part may seem nit-picking, but it is indicative of how little room for nuance the authors of your wikipedia entry seem to allow. Not that I could verify it as you didn't provide a link.

Visitors Welcome Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The Nobel
> Memorial Prize in Econmic Sciences is not awarded
> by the Swedish or Norwegian Nobel Institues nor
> paid by it. It has been awarded since 1969 by the
> National Bank of Sweden and has nothing to do with
> the real Nobel Prizes which were established in
> 1895.

The official name is Swedish National Bank's Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Way too long for journalists, which is probably where the confusion arose ;)

Sorry my eyes glaze over when Jewish toot horns...Forty years of wandering...every time I see a video of the wailing wall ...they don't appear any brighter than Mormons..but dam proud of it....everyone's definition f smart varies...reading books...hearing lectures...and parroting back agreed upon answers would seem more along good memory not intelligence...my old man was a phd so was good at parroting...but never had an original thought in his life...loved to memorize other peoples thoughts to parrot back in talks...there's a difference IMO...my brother is also educated yet even with all the info still thinks joes myth is true and jeebus will be here any minute...he was telling me how bright he was in juxtasupposing four text books to write a paper....wooooo haha...yet not a clue what to do for grass tetanus ...shipping fever...foot rot or a breach calf...or when to bale hay....all knowledge is not useful right Boyd?

There are plenty of moronic atheists out there... you just need to go on to Facebook and Youtube to find them... a lot of them can't tell spoofs of religious material (even when blindingly obvious) from the real thing. In fact, they can't pick up on satire in general. Then there are illiterate screeds - religious people may post them, but there are plenty of atheist posters at it too.

A lot of atheists are literalists in almost everything they do. It puts them in the same category as religious fundamentalists since they struggle with artistic concepts as metaphor, hyperbole, allusion and the aforementioned satire... they're the kind of people who listen to "Peter and the Wolf" and struggle with the notion that each instrument represents a character in it. Understanding complex poetry is difficult for these types as well.

Worst of all, some of them criticise religion without checking out the facts. I had a discussion the other day with an atheist who thought the Vatican removed the Apocrypha from the Bible. And another who thought Adam & Eve were supposed to be created with Original Sin. I had to point out in the former case that the Protestants had done it, and in the latter that no church AFAIK believes that about Adam & Eve. (The LDS doesn't believe in original sin at all.)

I have noticed that too on FB and ex Mormon boards. Of course it isnt all atheists but some dont have any idea what various religions actually believe. If they are ex believers everything is just like what they experienced. If they were never involved they go for extreme stereotypes.Dont get me started on literalist thinking.

You are right BD. I've seen Mo's do it many times and some atheists too.

We've also seen Never Mo's make criticisms of the church which are so way out that no current membere will really accept them or be persuaded by them. Like saying Mormons worship Satan in the temple - there are plenty of members of this board who have been in the temple and know that's untrue.

If you're going to criticise or send up something... do your homework assignments first! Like for example, the RCs don't all follow the Vatican robotically - a lot of RCs use condoms on a regular basis although the Vatican frowns on it. Maybe not Pope Francis but he's unusual.

I read a Muslim tract against Christianity in general and it based a lot of its arguments on quotes from the Jehovah's Witnesses! Now whatever you may think of the JWs, they don't speak for the vast majority of Christians, and have a lot of pretty unusual traits (like they refuse to use the word "church" or the cross for example) which set them apart. Muslims themselves have so many misconceptions about them in the west that you could write whole books on it.

I know a lot of atheists, and I know some who are less informed than others. I know a lot of religious folks, and some are smarter than the others. So what does that have to do with objective measures of intelligence, and group differences?

Some people here really love to bash Gnu Atheists. Sad little bashers.


HH =)

So atheists can be very intelligent.

Perhaps religion believers spend much of their time and energy thinking and working on religious projects and thoughts and they don't have as much time or talent left for original writings and scientific experimentation.

In a way. I don't trust medical specialists who are evangelical Christians. It's why I quit going to an orthopaedic surgeon once. I couldn't take the religious language, having a doctor pray for me right in the examination room, the waiting room littered with bibles, religious tracts, children's Bible story books, and Christian rock on the waiting room speakers.

I did have a surgeon who said she'd pray for me once. At least there were no prayer materials in the waiting room and she never said another word about it. I let it go by because she was an extremely good surgeon and I very much liked her.