Question

[bhsmte]

I believe that to be a biased finding. Numbers can be skewed and to mean whatever one wants tum to. Regardless. I'm done. I'm not going to try to prove otherwise, it is a pointless argument without any benefit to either of us. You may be correct, but what you say doesn't line up with my observations or experiences in any way. I have found people of all walks with both high and lo intelligence, seemingly.

I give.

Peace

The studies I linked, didn't say all believers are of lower intellect, which is what you seem to be taking from it. The studies stated; there was a "correlation" between higher education achieved (and higher IQ's) and less religious belief.

Furthermore, I would not put your personal experiences, on the same plane of studies that have reviewed the information, for obvious reasons.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The studies I linked, didn't say all believers are of lower intellect, which is what you seem to be taking from it. The studies stated; there was a "correlation" between higher education achieved (and higher IQ's) and less religious belief.

Furthermore, I would not put your personal experiences, on the same plane of studies that have reviewed the information, for obvious reasons.

I didn't view the studies, honestly.

Personal observation is the only one that had the potential to be honest and pertinent.

 

[popsthebuilder]

"has" rather

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't view the studies, honestly.

Personal observation is the only one that had the potential to be honest and pertinent.

Especially so, when that personal observation fits a personal psychological need.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Especially so, when that personal observation fits a personal psychological need.

No, only through the absence of personal need or justification in any way. How could one even attempt to view things from outside themselves if there very view was limited to themselves?

 

[popsthebuilder]

"their" dangit! How's that for intellect?

 

[bhsmte]

No, only through the absence of personal need or justification in any way. How could one even attempt to view things from outside themselves if there very view was limited to themselves?

Studies that include observations that you could never observe directly from within yourself, are an excellent tool to understand certain things, on larger scales.

Could you personal observe all the people included in these studies? No, not even close, so studies such as the one's I included, are a tool to allow yourself, to view things, outside of yourself.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I didn't say you were being dishonest. Bias isn't necessarily about dishonesty but often instead it is a lack of awareness.

The lack of trust mentioned wouldn't be because of a lack of belief in your honesty but rather due to poor analysis.

You aren't necessarily aware of your bias, but when confronted with data your choice was to disregard it and focus instead on your "experience", which shows evidence of a confirmation bias in your experience in general.

Why would you doubt the detailed research and not your own much more limited experience? I'm betting that you can not show that your "experience" is a more through and less biased set of research you are criticizing ad hoc.

Like I said. Research is often funded. Not limited to the motives or agenda of the funders per say, the outcome can be skewed in favor of whatever direction those producing the results want.

Through personal experience one indeed generally does this same thing. I do not refute that either. Through lack of motive but we hat is utter honesty in All ways imaginable and in relinquishing greed or want of self on an inner most level and consciously through introspection and retrospect one can remove bias or vail and begin to see things in a clearer light.

I do not refute that I have biases, just that I indeed have the capacity to identify and nullify them as I have done here in regards to my original stance.

No my experience isn't equivalent in breadth to the studies sited. No doubt. I can honestly doubt the findings though as I cannot be assured that the motives of the ones responsible for the data or tests are without bias.

Hope that helps clarify.
Peace

 

[variant]

Like I said. Research is often funded. Not limited to the motives or agenda of the funders per say, the outcome can be skewed in favor of whatever direction those producing the results want.

Through personal experience one indeed generally does this same thing. I do not refute that either. Through lack of motive but we hat is utter honesty in All ways imaginable and in relinquishing greed or want of self on an inner most level and consciously through introspection and retrospect one can remove bias or vail and begin to see things in a clearer light.

I do not refute that I have biases, just that I indeed have the capacity to identify and nullify them as I have done here in regards to my original stance.

No my experience isn't equivalent in breadth to the studies sited. No doubt. I can honestly doubt the findings though as I cannot be assured that the motives of the ones responsible for the data or tests are without bias.

Hope that helps clarify.
Peace

You don't have any evidence of this (you didn't even read it) it's just that you decided to doubt it based upon the results you didn't like.

Clear evidence of confirmation bias.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You don't have any evidence of this (you didn't even read it) it's just that you decided to doubt it based upon the results you didn't like.

Clear evidence of confirmation bias.

You really don't make sense at this point. I have stated repeatedly that I do not refute the evidence shown. I simply state that any testing done by anyone has the possibility to be biased.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I do not need to observe the results of a test to state that it could be biased. I did not say that it was and that I was not I said that it could be. I even went as far as to agree with the findings in general. So what exactly are you trying to say?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You really don't make sense at this point. I have stated repeatedly that I do not refute the evidence shown. I simply state that any testing done by anyone has the possibility to be biased.

Does the mere possibility of bias entail that the results must be biased?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Does the mere possibility of bias entail that the results must be biased?

No, and good point.

 

[variant]

I do not need to observe the results of a test to state that it could be biased. I did not say that it was and that I was not I said that it could be. I even went as far as to agree with the findings in general. So what exactly are you trying to say?

You said they were here:

I believe that to be a biased finding. Numbers can be skewed and to mean whatever one wants tum to. Regardless. I'm done. I'm not going to try to prove otherwise, it is a pointless argument without any benefit to either of us. You may be correct, but what you say doesn't line up with my observations or experiences in any way. I have found people of all walks with both high and lo intelligence, seemingly.

I give.

Peace

Did I miss a retraction?

 

[popsthebuilder]

You said they were here:



Did I miss a retraction?

Yes I did state that the finding could be correct.

 

[variant]

Yes I did state that the finding could be correct.

But you don't believe it to be correct, but rather rely on your own less thorough experience and instead doubt it.

Which is as I said, a confirmation bias.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Actually I have stated otherwise; that indeed regardless of what I know to be true based on my personal observations and experience; a larger scale study could easily refute my findings. However, both the ratio of religious to non religious, and the quality of education attained is different in different geoghraphical locations. It's a lack of controls raising the chance of inaccuracy of findings, and as such, can be thrown out as such.

What I'm saying is that both religion or the lack there of and education level, perhaps even iq level seems to be somewhat based on geography and tradition, and genes and not based on if one believes in God or not.

 

[variant]

Actually I have stated otherwise; that indeed regardless of what I know to be true based on my personal observations and experience; a larger scale study could easily refute my findings. However, both the ratio of religious to non religious, and the quality of education attained is different in different geoghraphical locations. It's a lack of controls raising the chance of inaccuracy of findings, and as such, can be thrown out as such.

What I'm saying is that both religion or the lack there of and education level, perhaps even iq level seems to be somewhat based on geography and tradition, and genes and not based on if one believes in God or not.

The original quote was of a review of 63 studies dating back to 1928, what leads you to believe the issue is geography?

 

[bhsmte]

The original quote was of a review of 63 studies dating back to 1928, what leads you to believe the issue is geography?

It appears the poster is stating, their personal experiences do not align with those 63 studies, so those studies must be wrong.

Or at least, those studies create a great deal of cognitive dissonance and need to be called bias, while their own limited personal experience, is more reliable.

 

[variant]

It appears the poster is stating, their personal experiences do not align with those 63 studies, so those studies must be wrong.

Or at least, those studies create a great deal of cognitive dissonance and need to be called bias, while their own limited personal experience, is more reliable.

I'm just sitting here marveling at the analysis that sort of sounds like what a reasonable person might object to if a study were done and lacked a specific control, but, doesn't seem to be derived from the actual material evidence being objected to.