I know there is are impressive p-values claimed in the original paper, but the s.d.'s are extremely large relative to the differences between groups. This means that a few individuals likely skewed the study. Another way in which p-values can lead to B.S. Excrement all around.
Agnostics are in fact the smartest people, although they will question that conclusion. The most famous agnostic was probably sargent Schultz of Hogan's Heros - "I know nothing!". However, he said that with perhaps a bit too much conviction.
I like this title, and i'd love it to be true. Perhaps it is, but this study proves nothing of the sort. "Higher IQ" is not the same as "smarter". Intelligence is an elusive object (if indeed it is one) and IQ is certainly no complete, reliable and objective measurement of this floating concept.
Helmuth Nyborg is quite a controversial figure here in Danmark, and has been disallowed to continue as professor emeritus at Aarhus university when he reached pensionable age. If I recall correctly, he also claimed that women had lower IQ than men, and that the danish social security system was "selecting" for people with low IQ. What really gets to me is not just the rather poor grasp of statistics and genetics, but the suggestion, that people with low IQ are somehow inferior:
“High-IQ people are able to curb magical, supernatural thinking and tend to deal with the uncertainties of life on a rational–critical–empirical basis, and to become prosperous servants of society, whereas low-IQ people easily become trapped in religious magical thinking, in addition to achieving, earning and serving less well.”
Nyborg does seem to have a poor grasp of genetics if he thinks men are smarter than women; first of all, the average of both groups is the same, and even if the averages were different, you can't generalize from the group to an individual.
I am rather intimately familiar with IQ research, both from my own reading and exposure to related research in my training (I'm a neuroscience student) and from my own experience having my IQ tested. 'Inferior' is a subjective term and may be interpreted in several ways (although, if anyone knows me well, they know I do not think well of the unintelligent); however, to the extent that Nyborg will say their thinking processes are inferior, he is COMPLETELY correct.
lol, all's this blogger did was prove his stupidity by acknowledging that he has no idea what the hell an Agnostic is. FUNFACT: Agnostics don't all believe in god, in fact, many do not claim to know whether or not any god truly exists. So how does that make them "religious"? (in the popular thought of the term, since by the most basic definition, Atheism could be a religion as well)
Secondly, the very words in that link specifically state that atheists are not smarter than the religious, it says that those who are more "intelligent" (which it also stated, it was a narrow form of measured intelligence, not measuring creative or emotional thinking) tend to be less religious.
One thing I know for sure from this post though, is that you certainly aren't smarter than an "agnostic", or a religious person for that matter.
Hahahahaha you have to got be kidding me. Atheists are not smarter than agnostics. Agnostics are honestly the smartest in that they can see that there is no way to prove or disprove of a god. Atheists attempt to persuade religious followers that god doesn't exist because we proved it wrong. With what? No information is absolutely concrete. There will always be an unanswered question. Plus who says it's a god that created humanity for love and all that. What if it was just a greater being, a god, that created everything. Even then where did that god come from? Again more unanswered questions, therefore true agnostics will never establish themselves with atheists and probably not religion, depending on their faith. I for one dislike religion as I don't have faith in all their bullshit stories. Religion just establishes community and good morals, which were invented when humanity was invented.
OK, our troll friend has necro'ed a 5 year old thread. I'll bite.
"Agnostics are honestly the smartest in that they can see that there is no way to prove or disprove of a god."
Really? Oh, so you have a proof for sure that nowhere in the universe does a proof of a universal negative exist. So you have a proof of the nonexistence of a thing anywhere in the universe, that is, you have a proof of a universal negative-- namely, your proof that there can be no proofs of universal negatives... like the one you have... but that you say can't exist. So there can be no proofs of universal negatives, except for your own proof, which is a proof that there can be no proofs of universal negatives, except your own...
Sure, but Anglicans are smartest of all!!
ReplyDeleteAh, but shouldn't Anglicans be counted as agnostics anyway?
ReplyDeleteWell, All Things Bright and Beautiful, and Te Deum Laudamus, look who comes out on top.
ReplyDeleteI thought Unitarians were supposed to be the smart ones (they believe in at most one God, according to Whitehead).
Perhaps it is true of Anglicans waht some people say is true of the Druze- they no longer know what they believe. What liberation!
I know there is are impressive p-values claimed in the original paper, but the s.d.'s are extremely large relative to the differences between groups. This means that a few individuals likely skewed the study. Another way in which p-values can lead to B.S. Excrement all around.
ReplyDeleteOh, I don't know...
ReplyDeleteWow, splitting hairs. I was happy just to be smarter than religious people!
ReplyDeleteI thought Unitarians were supposed to be the smart ones (they believe in at most one God, according to Whitehead).
ReplyDeletenot enough in the NLSY sample. they're almost certainly smarter on average than episcopalians. we have SAT data from unitarian kids.
Most of the Jews I know are at least agnostic, if not full on atheists.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if I even know any Anglicans.
Agnostics are in fact the smartest people, although they will question that conclusion. The most famous agnostic was probably sargent Schultz of Hogan's Heros - "I know nothing!". However, he said that with perhaps a bit too much conviction.
ReplyDeleteI like this title, and i'd love it to be true. Perhaps it is, but this study proves nothing of the sort. "Higher IQ" is not the same as "smarter". Intelligence is an elusive object (if indeed it is one) and IQ is certainly no complete, reliable and objective measurement of this floating concept.
ReplyDeleteHelmuth Nyborg is quite a controversial figure here in Danmark, and has been disallowed to continue as professor emeritus at Aarhus university when he reached pensionable age. If I recall correctly, he also claimed that women had lower IQ than men, and that the danish social security system was "selecting" for people with low IQ.
ReplyDeleteWhat really gets to me is not just the rather poor grasp of statistics and genetics, but the suggestion, that people with low IQ are somehow inferior:
“High-IQ people are able to curb magical, supernatural thinking and tend to deal with the uncertainties of life on a rational–critical–empirical basis, and to become prosperous servants of society, whereas low-IQ people easily become trapped in religious magical thinking, in addition to achieving, earning and serving less well.”
Corneel -
ReplyDeleteNyborg does seem to have a poor grasp of genetics if he thinks men are smarter than women; first of all, the average of both groups is the same, and even if the averages were different, you can't generalize from the group to an individual.
I am rather intimately familiar with IQ research, both from my own reading and exposure to related research in my training (I'm a neuroscience student) and from my own experience having my IQ tested. 'Inferior' is a subjective term and may be interpreted in several ways (although, if anyone knows me well, they know I do not think well of the unintelligent); however, to the extent that Nyborg will say their thinking processes are inferior, he is COMPLETELY correct.
Cristophe Thill -
ReplyDeleteHow do you define 'smarter'? How do you define 'intelligent'? Where do you say the two intersect?
"I thought Unitarians were supposed to be the smart ones (they believe in at most one God, according to Whitehead)."
ReplyDeleteDon't believe everything you read in U*Unitarian propaganda. . . ;-)
lol, all's this blogger did was prove his stupidity by acknowledging that he has no idea what the hell an Agnostic is. FUNFACT: Agnostics don't all believe in god, in fact, many do not claim to know whether or not any god truly exists. So how does that make them "religious"? (in the popular thought of the term, since by the most basic definition, Atheism could be a religion as well)
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the very words in that link specifically state that atheists are not smarter than the religious, it says that those who are more "intelligent" (which it also stated, it was a narrow form of measured intelligence, not measuring creative or emotional thinking) tend to be less religious.
One thing I know for sure from this post though, is that you certainly aren't smarter than an "agnostic", or a religious person for that matter.
lol, all's this post does is prove the stupidity of the blogger, as he has no idea what the hell an Agnostic is.
ReplyDeleteHahahahaha you have to got be kidding me. Atheists are not smarter than agnostics. Agnostics are honestly the smartest in that they can see that there is no way to prove or disprove of a god. Atheists attempt to persuade religious followers that god doesn't exist because we proved it wrong. With what? No information is absolutely concrete. There will always be an unanswered question. Plus who says it's a god that created humanity for love and all that. What if it was just a greater being, a god, that created everything. Even then where did that god come from? Again more unanswered questions, therefore true agnostics will never establish themselves with atheists and probably not religion, depending on their faith. I for one dislike religion as I don't have faith in all their bullshit stories. Religion just establishes community and good morals, which were invented when humanity was invented.
ReplyDeleteOK, our troll friend has necro'ed a 5 year old thread. I'll bite.
Delete"Agnostics are honestly the smartest in that they can see that there is no way to prove or disprove of a god."
Really? Oh, so you have a proof for sure that nowhere in the universe does a proof of a universal negative exist. So you have a proof of the nonexistence of a thing anywhere in the universe, that is, you have a proof of a universal negative-- namely, your proof that there can be no proofs of universal negatives... like the one you have... but that you say can't exist. So there can be no proofs of universal negatives, except for your own proof, which is a proof that there can be no proofs of universal negatives, except your own...