definitive study on IQ and religious belief?

[bpesta22]

I'm gonna try running one. Measures include:

The Wonderlic (12 minute paper and pencil IQ test).

Tests of basic cognition (reaction time and inspection time)

Overclaiming (a signal detection based measure of familiarity with general world knowledge; correlates pretty nicely with IQ).

Surveys measuring spirituality, religious fundamentalism and scriptural literalism.

Goal is to run about 400 people, since heathens seem to be way under-represented.

This likely won't help me get tenure as it's wholly unrelated to my area, but I see it as a hobby.

Predictions?

Also, some (one person?!) were interested in the study I was doing on race, basic cognition and IQ. It's now under review at Intelligence. If anyone's interested still, I can post the reviews when it gets rejected:) This will likely take months though...

[casebro]

I doubt IQ corellates with judgement. I know plenty of intellectual fools. I think you will find lots of folk with high IQ and beliefs in the supernatural. Darn it.

[bpesta22]

case-- I think you are likely right. But I have measures of "spirituality" which perhaps might show little correlation; whereas, the scriptural literalism stuff might.

[The Great Hairy One]

You might want to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

Cheers,
TGHO

[Puppycow]

Well as long as you're doing it, how about throwing in some other stuff to see if IQ correlates with smoking habits, gambling, wealth, obesity, etc.

What about so-called "social intelligence" and "emotional intelligence"?

[bpesta22]

TGHO-- thanks for the link; I was aware of only some of the info there.

Pup: I remember that IQ correlates inversely with smoking, and it's very well replicated that IQ correlates with wealth-- SES-- at about .33.

I'm not a big fan of neither mutliple nor emotional IQ.

[Dave1001]

I'm gonna try running one. Measures include:

The Wonderlic (12 minute paper and pencil IQ test).

Tests of basic cognition (reaction time and inspection time)

Overclaiming (a signal detection based measure of familiarity with general world knowledge; correlates pretty nicely with IQ).

Surveys measuring spirituality, religious fundamentalism and scriptural literalism.

Goal is to run about 400 people, since heathens seem to be way under-represented.

This likely won't help me get tenure as it's wholly unrelated to my area, but I see it as a hobby.

Predictions?



Sounds interesting. Good luck with this. If there are significant expenses, perhaps you can set up a paypal donation site.

[Dave1001]

I doubt IQ corellates with judgement. I know plenty of intellectual fools. I think you will find lots of folk with high IQ and beliefs in the supernatural. Darn it.


It would be interesting to see how many of them are crypto-skeptics though. For example Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

[ImaginalDisc]

It would be interesting to see how many of them are crypto-skeptics though. For example Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Is "crypto-skeptics" a code word for "people who disagree with my baseless claims which I none the less desperately cling to like a drowing man clutches jetsam?"

[Tanja]

Are you controlling for socio-economic status and level of education?

[bpesta22]

thanks Dave! No expense really; just time.

Tanja: They will be college students, so educational level will be narrow, and I will code what grade they're in. Not measuring SES though.

More just exploring versus explaining.

[DRBUZZ0]

Pup: I remember that IQ correlates inversely with smoking...

I have read studies which have indicated this as well. While there are smokers of both high and low IQ's it found that the lower one's IQ the higher the probability of them smoking.

It would also be logical to think that perhaps since smoking is something people find calming or reassuring that those who smoke might tend to be the type who make more emotional decisions or are more prone to anxiety and are not able to deal with it as well.


This obviously makes me a horrible person, but I had thought before that it was unfortionate that smoking rarely kills anyone before they have a chance to reproduce because it would be a very good evolutionary influence. But again... that makes me a bad person, so... just pretend I didn't say that

[Taffer]

This obviously makes me a horrible person, but I had thought before that it was unfortionate that smoking rarely kills anyone before they have a chance to reproduce because it would be a very good evolutionary influence. But again... that makes me a bad person, so... just pretend I didn't say that

...
:boxedin:

[LostAngeles]

I have read studies which have indicated this as well. While there are smokers of both high and low IQ's it found that the lower one's IQ the higher the probability of them smoking.

It would also be logical to think that perhaps since smoking is something people find calming or reassuring that those who smoke might tend to be the type who make more emotional decisions or are more prone to anxiety and are not able to deal with it as well.


This obviously makes me a horrible person, but I had thought before that it was unfortionate that smoking rarely kills anyone before they have a chance to reproduce because it would be a very good evolutionary influence. But again... that makes me a bad person, so... just pretend I didn't say that

All I'll say to your last paragraph is that my parents smoke.

[DRBUZZ0]

All I'll say to your last paragraph is that my parents smoke.

Generally good for the collective species != good for each individual. Obviously it's not cut and dry. it's a trend which would tend to have an influence over generations, with... well you all know that. But it's not like it even works so eh...

[Taffer]

Generally good for the collective species != good for each individual. Obviously it's not cut and dry. it's a trend which would tend to have an influence over generations, with... well you all know that. But it's not like it even works so eh...

So you're saying that smoking is entirely genetic?

[Thomas]

Yea, let's get rid of the smokers Buzz0, in fact, let's delete them from history entirely because they're so daft..

Let's begin with, uhm..


Albert Einstein
Thomas Edison
Winston Churchill
Bertrand Russell
Walt Disney
Jean-Paul Satre
Robert Oppenheimer
Sigmund Freud
Niels Bohr
Kurt Vonnegut
J.J.R. Tolkien
Sean Penn (mentioned here because I dated his cousin, Desiree, like two months ago, mehe)..And etc. etc., let's delete them from history dudio, because we all know that all the unbiased research that has gone into smoking is entirely correct. Carry on :)

[LostAngeles]

Generally good for the collective species != good for each individual. Obviously it's not cut and dry. it's a trend which would tend to have an influence over generations, with... well you all know that. But it's not like it even works so eh...

I don't think I'm quite clear on your response here, would you mind explaining, please?

[treble_head]

Yea, let's get rid of the smokers Buzz0, in fact, let's delete them from history entirely because they're so daft..

Let's begin with, uhm..

Albert Einstein
Thomas Edison
Winston Churchill
Bertrand Russell
Walt Disney
Jean-Paul Satre
Robert Oppenheimer
Sigmund Freud
Niels Bohr
Kurt Vonnegut
J.J.R. Tolkien
Sean Penn (mentioned here because I dated his cousin, Desiree, like two months ago, mehe)..And etc. etc., let's delete them from history dudio, because we all know that all the unbiased research that has gone into smoking is entirely correct. Carry on :)
You forgot:
Alexander Graham Bell
Edwin Hubble
Helmut Schmidt
Franklin D. Roosevelt
King Hussein of Jordan
John F Kennedy (who loved his little cigars)
George Orwell
Oscar Wilde "A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want?"
C.S. Lewis
Christopher Lee
James Dean
Liz Taylor
Tom Waits
Sophia Loren
Kate Winslet (she prefers to roll her own)
Pavarotti
John Wayne
Johnny Cash
David Carradine
Sinatra
Robbie Williams
Pierce Brosnan
Marylin Monroe
John Lennon
Frank Zappa
Vincent Van Gogh
Alfred Hitchcock
Maurice Ravel
Monet
Pablo Picasso
Piet Mondrain
Aaron Spelling


Bastards all! Obviously of a low IQ.

[Thomas]

hehe.. Buzz0, delete that Einstein sig, because he's an idiot you know! Who should be evolutionary rejected.

[YoPopa]

...... and it's very well replicated that IQ correlates with wealth-- SES-- at about .33.
Is this still a consensus opinion re, IQ & wealth? I thought the correlation was between IQ & income but that it disappeared when wealth was brought into the equation. According to a recent study at Ohio State University (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070424204519.htm).

[TruthSeeker]

Are you measuring religiosity, i.e., participation in organized religion?
I don't know the fundamentalism/literalism measures but religiosity is the measure that correlates with health and longevity, probably because it is a proxy of social support.

How will you handle different religions or is there much variability at your university?

[Earthborn]

Predictions?I predict that the results will appear to confirm your biases.
I predict that you will claim that it somehow supports the idea of innate or immutable differences.
I predict that behaviourists will disagree.
I predict that there will be so much overlap between the groups that the results will be meaningless to anyone.
I predict that in your report you will write a justification why this sort of research is important that will be a good contender for "Lamest Excuse In The Universe".
I predict that you stand a good change of getting a three paragraph article carrying an alarmist title, in the back the science section of a no-name newspaper.
I predict that you will claim that the journalist has totally misrepresented your research.
I predict that you will lament the quality of science journalism in general.
I predict that if you are lucky, your research will be heartily laughed at in the satirical Dutch science talkshow "Onder De Tram".
I predict that if you really lucky, Brainiac will try to replicate your results in a section called "Godless v. Gullible" with a sample size of two; one yet to be named prominent British atheist evolutionary biologist and a yet to be named prominent British fertility expert who considers himself spiritual.

And I predict we will laugh, and laugh and laugh... Because in the same show, John Tickle will do something silly with his little pinky toe.

[Dave1001]

Is "crypto-skeptics" a code word for "people who disagree with my baseless claims which I none the less desperately cling to like a drowing man clutches jetsam?"

Nope. Crypto-skeptic is a word for people who are secretly skeptical about something, such as christian dogma.

[DRBUZZ0]

hehe.. Buzz0, delete that Einstein sig, because he's an idiot you know! Who should be evolutionary rejected.

people who X Tend to be != Everyone who X is...

And I'm not going into this any further.... It's getting into the rhelm of uber-stupid with the trolling

[Ladewig]

Aaron Spelling


Aaron Spelling ??

For shame, Treble Head, for shame.

[bpesta22]

I have religiosity and spiritualism and literalism. Not sure how to handle different religions. Gonna wait and see how many different types I get.

I'm ok with smokers on average scoring lower on IQ tests than non-smokers.

Three packs a day here!

[bpesta22]

Yo papa.

Thanks for the link; wasn't familiar with this study.

[Eos of the Eons]

I think another test would be logic and spirituality. There are plenty of logic tests. Anyone can do a math problem, but a logic problem requires different thinking. There are some logic questions on IQ tests, but not many.

I feel that most very spiritual people would do less well on logic tests than people less inclined to figure you can believe in weird stuff for no reason.

[LostAngeles]

people who X Tend to be != Everyone who X is...

And I'm not going into this any further.... It's getting into the rhelm of uber-stupid with the trolling

Considering who suggested some folks die before reproducing, I think you might want to meet my friend, Kettle...

[DRBUZZ0]

Considering who suggested some folks die before reproducing, I think you might want to meet my friend, Kettle...

Don't start down that road LA. You think I am going to take back what I said, you're wrong. You think you can keep provoking me until you get me really pissed and then show everyone how irrational I am. Yea, I've made that mistake before. Flame bait is called "bait" because it's enticing to take.


Maybe one ought to consider that if smoking did infact frequently kill people before they did reproduce that, in all likely hood, it would have had an affect on the human population long long ago.

In theory: The net affect would be that those who tended to be very nervous, prone to addiction, in need of self-medication, would be more likely to not have offspring. This would not always be the case, but more so than those who did not smoke, and therefore might be less likely to have a predisposition to addiction.

Over generations this would have an appreciable affect. You would not be here nor I because the human race would be entirely different, history would be different and it's impossible to even say how much different.

Lets take, for example, alcoholism. It's not entirely a stereotype that some groups are more prone to it. It has been documented that alcoholism can be linked to certain groups. It has been theorized that groups which did not have alcohol in their society would not have any reason to promote those without genetic predispositions to alcoholism. However, those which had alcohol for many generations, would have had opportunities for heavy or uncontrolled drinkers to have died early as a consequence of drinking or it's results.

Although it would not be "good" for these people to meet tragic ends, the end result is that people in such societies, over time, would have a lower likelyhood of having genetic predispositions to alcohol dependency.

Similarly, it is not an unreasonable hypothysis that if smoking had more of an impact on pre-procreation mortality (as opposed to killing people in horrible and torturous ways in their 40's and 50's or later in most cases), then those who turn to smoking as a means of dealing with stress, because they are impulsive or for other such reasons, would be reduced in the population. This, in turn, could possibly have positive affects in the long run.


Lets think things through before we start "pin the evil and insensitive accusations on buzz0" again.

Also: My father was a light smoker, but my aunt (who died of lung cancer) was a heavy smoker as was my fraternal grandmother, my maternal grandfather and my grandmothers father, who died of lung cancer in his early 50's in the late 1930's. Therefore, if this were the case, myself and most of my family would not be here.

[LostAngeles]

Don't start down that road LA. You think I am going to take back what I said, you're wrong. You think you can keep provoking me until you get me really pissed and then show everyone how irrational I am. Yea, I've made that mistake before. Flame bait is called "bait" because it's enticing to take.


Maybe one ought to consider that if smoking did infact frequently kill people before they did reproduce that, in all likely hood, it would have had an affect on the human population long long ago.

In theory: The net affect would be that those who tended to be very nervous, prone to addiction, in need of self-medication, would be more likely to not have offspring. This would not always be the case, but more so than those who did not smoke, and therefore might be less likely to have a predisposition to addiction.

Over generations this would have an appreciable affect. You would not be here nor I because the human race would be entirely different, history would be different and it's impossible to even say how much different.

Lets take, for example, alcoholism. It's not entirely a stereotype that some groups are more prone to it. It has been documented that alcoholism can be linked to certain groups. It has been theorized that groups which did not have alcohol in their society would not have any reason to promote those without genetic predispositions to alcoholism. However, those which had alcohol for many generations, would have had opportunities for heavy or uncontrolled drinkers to have died early as a consequence of drinking or it's results.

Although it would not be "good" for these people to meet tragic ends, the end result is that people in such societies, over time, would have a lower likelyhood of having genetic predispositions to alcohol dependency.

Similarly, it is not an unreasonable hypothysis that if smoking had more of an impact on pre-procreation mortality (as opposed to killing people in horrible and torturous ways in their 40's and 50's or later in most cases), then those who turn to smoking as a means of dealing with stress, because they are impulsive or for other such reasons, would be reduced in the population. This, in turn, could possibly have positive affects in the long run.


Lets think things through before we start "pin the evil and insensitive accusations on buzz0" again.

Also: My father was a light smoker, but my aunt (who died of lung cancer) was a heavy smoker as was my fraternal grandmother, my maternal grandfather and my grandmothers father, who died of lung cancer in his early 50's in the late 1930's. Therefore, if this were the case, myself and most of my family would not be here.

I'm just pointing out who trolled first, Buzz0. Don't troll with comments about who should and shouldn't reproduce and the complain when people are offended by it.

[blutoski]

I'm gonna try running one. Measures include:

The Wonderlic (12 minute paper and pencil IQ test).

Tests of basic cognition (reaction time and inspection time)

Overclaiming (a signal detection based measure of familiarity with general world knowledge; correlates pretty nicely with IQ).

Surveys measuring spirituality, religious fundamentalism and scriptural literalism.

Goal is to run about 400 people, since heathens seem to be way under-represented.

This likely won't help me get tenure as it's wholly unrelated to my area, but I see it as a hobby.

Predictions?

Also, some (one person?!) were interested in the study I was doing on race, basic cognition and IQ. It's now under review at Intelligence. If anyone's interested still, I can post the reviews when it gets rejected:) This will likely take months though...

Why so many metrics? Why not one IQ test and one religiosity test?

My concern is that you're making the study too complex, which will make results hard to interpret. It also resembles a fishing expedition, which raises suspicion among skeptics.

[DRBUZZ0]

Considering who suggested some folks die before reproducing, I think you might want to meet my friend, Kettle...

Don't start down that road LA. You think I am going to take back what I said, you're wrong. You think you can keep provoking me until you get me really pissed and then show everyone how irrational I am. Yea, I've made that mistake before. Flame bait is called "bait" because it's enticing to take.


Maybe one ought to consider that if smoking did infact frequently kill people before they did reproduce that, in all likely hood, it would have had an affect on the human population long long ago.

In theory: The net affect would be that those who tended to be very nervous, prone to addiction, in need of self-medication, would be more likely to not have offspring. This would not always be the case, but more so than those who did not smoke, and therefore might be less likely to have a predisposition to addiction.

Over generations this would have an appreciable affect. You would not be here nor I because the human race would be entirely different, history would be different and it's impossible to even say how much different.

Lets take, for example, alcoholism. It's not entirely a stereotype that some groups are more prone to it. It has been documented that alcoholism can be linked to certain groups. It has been theorized that groups which did not have alcohol in their society would not have any reason to promote those without genetic predispositions to alcoholism. However, those which had alcohol for many generations, would have had opportunities for heavy or uncontrolled drinkers to have died early as a consequence of drinking or it's results.

Although it would not be "good" for these people to meet tragic ends, the end result is that people in such societies, over time, would have a lower likelyhood of having genetic predispositions to alcohol dependency.

Similarly, it is not an unreasonable hypothysis that if smoking had more of an impact on pre-procreation mortality (as opposed to killing people in horrible and torturous ways in their 40's and 50's or later in most cases), then those who turn to smoking as a means of dealing with stress, because they are impulsive or for other such reasons, would be reduced in the population. This, in turn, could possibly have positive affects in the long run.


Lets think things through before we start "pin the evil and insensitive accusations on buzz0" again.

Also: My father was a light smoker, but my aunt (who died of lung cancer) was a heavy smoker as was my fraternal grandmother, my maternal grandfather and my grandmothers father, who died of lung cancer in his early 50's in the late 1930's. Therefore, if this were the case, myself and most of my family would not be here.

[jon]

One thing - could be an interesting study, but would this really be viewed as definitive? If the study uses a sample of 400 college students, then I'd expect there'd be problems with applying this to society at large. Wouldn't there be? - college students aren't exactly typical (non)believers...

[bpesta22]

One thing - could be an interesting study, but would this really be viewed as definitive? If the study uses a sample of 400 college students, then I'd expect there'd be problems with applying this to society at large. Wouldn't there be? - college students aren't exactly typical (non)believers...


Eos: A logic study would be cool; perhaps a next step if general intelligence explains some variance in religiosity than maybe logic explains some of that variance.

I think fishing expeditions are fine, as long as the results can be replicated. Theory driven research is not my strong point;)

Also, I agree that it wouldn't be definitive; just me being silly. That said, I think external validity (worrying about whether samples generalize to populations) is more often than not a waste of time, and I would think only a very minor concern at least in this first study.

[scotth]

I doubt IQ corellates with judgement. I know plenty of intellectual fools. I think you will find lots of folk with high IQ and beliefs in the supernatural. Darn it.

As often as not, these would be low IQ people. Educated fools I see often.

[Ladewig]

One thing - could be an interesting study, but would this really be viewed as definitive? If the study uses a sample of 400 college students, then I'd expect there'd be problems with applying this to society at large. Wouldn't there be? - college students aren't exactly typical (non)believers...

Seconded.

[autumn1971]

Any IQ test is really a measure of how closely a person meets an imagined ideal metric for a particular situation. They are useful in determining differences between one individual and a chosen "average", but the very use of the term "IQ" is going to guarantee that the result, even if it shows a valid difference between groups, is going to cause biases in the future discussion.
I am in no way implying that these sorts of experiments aren't useful, just pointing out that, by involving the term IQ, one is using an arbitrary term to try and make an analysis.

I know that anecdotes are not data, but I got a pretty damn good score on every available "test" of my "intelligence", and promptly flunked out of college.

[articulett]

It does appear that a particular kind of ignorance is associated with a particular political party. I suspect there may also be correlations with I.Q. and religious belief...there is certainly a correlation with religious attendance and lack of acceptance of evolution.

http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2007/06/god-help-us.html
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

[Schneibster]

Re testing intelligence, I am a fan of the Bongard Problems (http://www.foundalis.com/res/diss_research.html). It is a rather limited test, but it shows a particular type of pattern recognition that I find tends to sort the wheat from the chaff.

[DRBUZZ0]

It does appear that a particular kind of ignorance is associated with a particular political party. I suspect there may also be correlations with I.Q. and religious belief...there is certainly a correlation with religious attendance and lack of acceptance of evolution.

http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2007/06/god-help-us.html
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

I really dislike the whole thing with trying to define a political ideology or something like that as being associated with intelligence. It's overly simplistic and really just takes a somewhat cheap-shot at things.

I mean, you have to consider that having a few rather dense hippies can take down the democratic party or some not-so-bright church goers could do the same to the republican. It does not change the fact that there are brilliant thinkers across the political spectrum.