NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24375

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-28 | 9.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!mcsun!fuug!prime!mits!iikkap
From: [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: iq<->religion: connection?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 92 12:07:15 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet poster)
Distribution: world,public
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Lines: 190
Nntp-Posting-Host: mits.mdata.fi

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Doe) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>
>>>Last year I taught seventh grade and at that age--twelve or
>>>thirteen or so--kids are developing abstract thinking skills and
>>>are questioning the cultural absolutes that have been handed down
>>>by their parents and by society in general.  This year I teach
>>>elementary kids, ranging in age from seven to twelve, and while
>>>their skills in abstract reasoning may not be as strong at those
>>>ages they are still quite willing to question that which has been
>>>foisted upon them.  Though I have only limited experience
>>>teaching so-called "average" kids, I taught one year in a poor
>>>inner-city neighborhood with a high percentage of resource
>>>students.  So, based on my experiences with gifted, average and
>>>below average kids, I've concluded that the more intelligent the
>>>child, the less superstitious and religious he will tend to be.
>>
>>[BTW, what about putting some of this into the FAQ?]
>
>Ask mathew about that; he's the keeper of the FAQ.  I'm willing to lay
>10 to 1 odds though that he'll find the same objections to this I do.

I don't think that Mathew's opinions are much changed by your outbursts. But
I'm not expecting him to agree with me or the person from Alaska. You're
just hindering our talk.

>. .
>
>>
>>>
>>>The effect in adults, as you've noted, is even more pronounced.
>>>I spent a number of years working at various jobs among the "salt
>>>of the earth" working-class people in the Bible Belt, and I've
>>>spent the last three years working as part of a university
>>>faculty as an adjunct instructor.  There are few atheists among
>>>the former group and few fundamentalist Christians in the latter.
>>
>>I have exactly same observations.
>
>And what of those of us who don't?  Do we cancel out your
>observations, or do you find a way to explain away our observations.
>
>>>
>>>It has been shown that there is a positive correlation between
>>>intelligence (as measured by such instruments as the
>>>Stanford-Binet IQ test) and level of education attained.  It has
>>>further been demonstrated that there is a correlation between
>>>level of education and degree of rejection of fundamentalist
>>>beliefs.  Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a
>>>correlation between intelligence and rejection of (at least)
>>>rigidly-fundamentalist religious belief.  From here, one does not
>>>have to go very far out on a limb to conclude that level of IQ
>>>is, indeed, positively correlated to atheistic belief systems.
>>
>>Some argue that IQ does not measure a person's intelligence properly,
>>which it doesn't. It measures only the logical/abstract thinking, which,
>>in my opinion, is 'real' intelligence. Actually, this type of intelligence
>>is required to be able to find loopholes in nowaday society structure and
>>habits.
>
>Let me see, IQ doesn't measure intelligence properly, but it does
>measure the "real" part.  Huh.
>
>>>
>>>My circle of friends, like yours, ranges from highly-gifted to
>>>dumber than a stump.  The most intelligent--and some are Mensa
>>
>>I thought some years ago about joining Mensa, but I just haven't
>>brought myself to do it. I once went to a low-level IQ test, and
>>my IQ went out of the chart (the chart top was IQ 170). No, I
>>don't wish to boast, just to substatiate on the context.
>
>OOOOOh!  AAAAAAH!
>
>Actually I don't know what my IQ is exactly.  I took the test in
>school, but never saw the results.  Must have been pretty good,
>because I was always at the top of my class.

"Top of my class"?? Hohoho. Sorry, I couldn't stop laughing. Surely, most
people know that being top of your class means nothing about your IQ.

>
>Does IQ serve any purpose other than placement in such an environment,
>and as an ego boost to such as yourself?

Well, what does it serve to you?

>
>>>members or could be if they were joiners--are atheists, almost to
>>>a man (or woman).  The not-so-brilliant ones, with a few notable
>>>exceptions, are religious to one degree or another.  I have only
>>>one fundamentalist friend, and she's that way more from emotional
>>>problems than from lack of intellect (she's a Ph.D.).
>>>
>>>A caveat is in order here:  unless we test everyone we come
>>>across, we cannot accurately judge one's intelligence.  Indeed, I
>>>suspect we characterize as intelligent those who share our
>>>beliefs, and hang the label "stupid" on those with whom we
>>>disagree.  Part of my job involves teaching teachers how they can
>>>recognize high intelligence in their students (it's not as easy
>>>as it would seem) but even though I hold a master's in the area I
>>>still cannot judge intelligence with a great degree of accuracy
>>>based only on informal conversation.  However, with training and
>>>exposure we get better and better, so I feel pretty confident
>>>that I have more or less correctly ranked my friends and
>>>acquaintances along the intelligence continuum.
>>>
>>>Furthermore, there is some disagreement as to what intelligence
>>>actually is, and whether it can be measured and, if so, how.  I
>>>personally prefer Howard Gardner's definition(s) of intelligence.
>>>In his watershed book, _Frames_of_Mind_, Gardner enumerates seven
>>>discrete yet interconnected intelligences:  verbal,
>>>logical/mathematical, spatial, musical, psychomotor,
>>>interpersonal and intrapersonal.  (Interestingly, you
>>>"coincidentally" noticed that your friends who seemed to be high
>>>in logical intelligence also rated high in mathematical ability.
>>>Gardner sees the two as connected, too.)  Therefore, if we speak
>>>of someone as "intelligent," we must be prepared to define in
>>>exactly what area this person is "intelligent."  You've done this
>>>(I believe correctly) when you speak of a high
>>>logical/mathematical intelligence in your atheist friends, but we
>>>must also remember that many frothy-mouthed fundamentalist
>>>preachers are apparently very high in verbal intelligence, and
>>>almost assuredly in interpersonal intelligence as well.  (Of
>>>course, these are the very areas that the "genius" of Adolph
>>>Hitler manifested itself, but that's another track altogether.)
>>
>>As time passes by, technology improves and per-capita incomes and standards of
>>living rise, people are getting more and more intelligent. Ultimately, religion
>>will disappear altogether, and it will be laughed at just as we laugh at the
>>superstitions of the middle ages (witch ducking for example).
>
>People get *more* intelligent with higher technology?  Or does the new
>environment just force us to utilize the intelligence that's already
>present?

Better methods of teaching, requirement to understand what the technology is
about.

>
>
>
>>>
>>>One more item:  There is a positive correlation between
>>>socio-economic status and intelligence as measured by
>>>standardized instruments.  In other words, rich kids will test
>>>out as more intelligent than poor kids.  There are a number of
>>>possible explanations for this, but the fact is that the
>>>difference exists.  Who can dispute the fact that there is a
>>>correlation between socio-economic deprivation and religiosity?
>>>That the poor tend to be more fundamentalist than the rich?  If
>>>this is true, then we have another avenue to show that
>>>non-religious people are smarter than religious people.
>>
>>This is true. Richer people have higher education and more time to think about
>>different matters, among other things.
>
>Or IQ is culturally biased, as some have claimed.
>
>>>
>>>Summary:   Rich or highly-educated people are more intelligent
>>>than poor or poorly-educated people.  Rich or highly-educated
>>>people tend to be less religious than poor or poorly-educated
>>>people.  Therefore the more intelligent people tend to be less
>>>religious than less intelligent people.  (Remember that a
>>>correlation does not necessarily demonstrate a cause-and-effect
>>>relationship--a correlation merely means that when one goes up,
>>>the other tends to go up, too.)  As an extension of this
>>>argument, we might fairly conclude that there are more atheists
>>>among the richer, more intelligent people than among the poorer,
>>>less educated people.
>>
>>It would be nice to see some stats made from the population of USA or Europe,
>>for example, and see exactly how this correlates (it does correlate, that is
>>for sure).
>
>Well, then look them up!  What are you waiting for?

Do you realize, that you are nothing but a nuisance to this conversation?

>
>SD


--
 __/|_  ,  ,--------------------------------------------------------------,
/o    \/:--| Iikka Paavolainen / [e-mail], in Espoo, Finland  |
\__~__/\:--| "I won't have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."    |
   `    `  `--------------------------------------------------------------'