Intelligence, Atheism & Relgiosity.

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has had a clean. Please refrain from goading, flaming, etc.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[keith99]

The measurement of IQ is really just a glorified short term memory test.

You must be taking IQ tests that are unlike those anywhere else in the world. Short term memory is one of the things that is almost entirely absent from IQ tests.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Intelligence, September-October 2013, Vol.41(5), pp.482-489

Abstract
Is there a positive impact of intelligence on religious disbelief after we account for the fact that both average intelligence and religious disbelief tend to be higher in more developed countries? We carry out four beta regression analyses and conclude that the answer is yes. We also compute impact curves that show how the effect of intelligence on atheism changes with average intelligence quotients. The impact is stronger at lower intelligence levels, peaks somewhere between 100 and 110, and then weakens. Bootstrap standard errors for our point estimates and bootstrap confidence intervals are also computed. •It has been established that intelligence positively correlates with atheism.•We show that intelligence impacts atheism even we account for economic development.•Impact curves of intelligence on religious disbelief are constructed.

The conclusions are a little concerning when seeking a religious pathway.

This is likely true but not for the reasons given.

1 Corinthians 1:25-27

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[Ophiolite]

You must be taking IQ tests that are unlike those anywhere else in the world. Short term memory is one of the things that is almost entirely absent from IQ tests.

I agree with the general thrust of your point, but surely short term memory plays a role in pattern recognition problems?

 

[FireDragon76]

Considering the character of some of Jesus' biggest fans, he hardly needs enemies. Sadly, the character of Christians is often a testament against Christianity.

 

[keith99]

I agree with the general thrust of your point, but surely short term memory plays a role in pattern recognition problems?

That could be the case if it were given orally, but it is almost always a written test so the whole pattern is there to see.

 

[Ophiolite]

That could be the case if it were given orally, but it is almost always a written test so the whole pattern is there to see.

As someone who feels challenged by the more complex pattern tests, I am aware of the need to constantly refresh the character of patterns by repeated reference to them. I am assured, from that personal experience, that the quality of short term memory plays an important role in successful completion of those problems. I appreciate that anecdotal evidence is weak, as is eye witness testimony, but I would be greatly surprised if sound research indicated my ideas on this were incorrect. Do you have anything that would disabuse me of those ideas?

 

[stevil]

I'm reasonably sure that many intelligent people think they actually know that Mars exists, when what they are really doing is believing it exists, by taking 2nd and 3rd hand information and trusting it is reliable.

I'm not about to put myself on a pedestal and presume that I know what "intelligent people think", but...

On to your point regarding "belief" vs "knowledge".
If a person claims to know something, they also happen to believe it.
You cannot claim to know something while simultaneously not believing it to be true. (unless you are lying of course).

So going by the above "knowledge" is a belief and it is a subset of all the beliefs that a person holds.
What differentiates the "knowledge" belief from the other beliefs?

It is the person's epistemology.
In general that which a person classifies as "knowledge" meets their own "justification" criteria. So these are "Justified" beliefs as opposed to "unjustified" beliefs.

People's "justification" criteria differ from each other, and also differ from situation to situation. For me, mundane claims require less justification than do extraordinary claims. For example, if my wife tells me that she has baked a fresh batch of cookies, and if I can smell the cookies and see the cookies and they don't look like store bought ones then I will deem the claim justified and hold it as knowledge even though I didn't see my wife cook them.
But, if my wife told me she waved a magic wand and the cookies magically appeared, well, since magic is an extraordinary thing, never having been proven ever to exist, I will not accept this as justified knowledge. I will investigate further and insist my wife prove her extraordinary claim.


With regards to a scientific claim that Mars exists, I know that science is a methodology based on measurement and evidence, it includes the obligation to document findings and evidence and to have peers review, critique and try to disprove the claim. I can take the claim as just a topic title and choose to believe it, promote it to justified knowledge, or I can seek out the reasons to why this claim was made, find out and understand the evidence provided, seek out other scientists rebuke of the claim. These things are all publicly available if I want to put the time in.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You must be taking IQ tests that are unlike those anywhere else in the world. Short term memory is one of the things that is almost entirely absent from IQ tests.

No it's not. Many widely used assessment batteries include measures of working memory.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

IQ isn't that robust in measuring human intelligence as there are three necessary components to human intelligence to where IQ only measures one aspect of it, hence calling the thesis mediocre at best.

The reason why you don't associate intelligence with other human cognitions (which are found to comprise of at least three distinct mental traits), is mainly because of the current social, academic construct. Intelligence is broad enough to cover many aspects of human potentials. For example, we could call Michelangelo a genius for his artistic creativity, or his measure of brilliance for his skills as an architect. Alternatively, we could call a person with high leadership qualities as ingenious. Both are technically a display of high levels of intelligence, but not in the sense of a mathematician or a physicist.

The issue I have is that IQ is unreliable as an accurate measurement of human intelligence and requires an overdue upgrade. The science into this has been out for a while now, and I'm confident as the science progresses (with the need of letting go of dogmatic consensus), models that take into account pattern recognition, intuition/heuristics and creativity, we will have better theories in measuring human intelligence.
In the meantime, the general standard of the IQ test has its use in academia and is relatively accurate for what it is, but it is fundamentally flawed and a fallacy in the measurement of human intelligence.

It has been updated. You are talking about a vast literature that has been growing for decades and a research programme that spans cognitive science, neuroscience, education, and many other fields. It is also used outside academic and research environments. In clinical contexts it is used to inform diagnosis and treatment of brain disorders. In school contexts it is used to identify learning disorders and inform individualised education plans. The public perception of these tests and their uses seems to reflect a number of misconceptions regarding what they can and can't measure, how they are in fact used in practice, and what the research tells us.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I can confirm that my daughter took a battery of cognitive tests which included short-term memory tests. They framed the results in terms of IQ. (I think perhaps that they should abandon the IQ term as it seems to come with baggage.)