Study by Evolutionary Psychologist Reveals Atheists Have Slightly Higher IQs

[curiousgirl]

Not sure if this has been covered in the forum before, but an evolutionary psychologist in London conducted a very interesting study:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH

Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs.

However, here comes the tricky part of the article (my bolding):

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.

IMO, it's like they automatically assume atheists will stereotype theists or vice versa after reading this. However, their study does suggest that atheists are smarter. What do you guys make of this?

[One Above All]

It makes sense. (Most) atheists analyze evidence and conclude that there are no gods and liberals understand that people should have the right to state what happens to their own bodies
Also, how is 6-11 points "not stunning"? I always thought that any difference in IQ above 5 points was significant

[curiousgirl]

Yes, I agree about the points. 11 points can take you from average to mildly gifted.

[Nick]

Rational thought will do that for you.

Lets see who is smarter...(A) a magic man in the sky made man out of dirt and woman out of a rib and got mad because a talking snake made the woman eat an apple. or (B) life evolved in the universe and evolution took off with conditions for it here on Earth.

[rickymooston]

Rational thought will do that for you.

I don't think a lot of intelligence is required to conclude there isn't a God.

To the contrary, some really intelligent people I know, have very elaborate mental exercises to get up their belief. I've met some downright geniuses with insane beliefs.

I'm not a big believer in IQs. That is to say, i suspect its a simplistic measure of intelligence quite easily bised by background. Intelligence probably involves many aspects

I'm also very suspicious about studies like this. Designing them properly is not trivial.

Many atheists I've observed don't appear more rational than theists. they still react on gut triggers to a number of things, just like theists do.

[curiousgirl]

I don't think a lot of intelligence is required to conclude there isn't a God.

Got that right.

To the contrary, some really intelligent people I know, have very elaborate mental exercises to get up their belief. I've met some downright geniuses with insane beliefs.

Note the words insane and elaborate in your statement. That does not entail rational. Also, you are speaking in vagueries.

I'm not a big believer in IQs. That is to say, i suspect its a simplistic measure of intelligence quite easily bised by background. Intelligence probably involves many aspects

While I agree that intelligence does involve many aspects (see Gardner's Multiple Intelligences),  I will address the background issue through the study below by showing that measuring information processing ability is a fair way to measure overall intelligence.

I'm also very suspicious about studies like this. Designing them properly is not trivial.

Agreed. The US Army has even looked into this through scientific research:


http://www.hqda.army.mil/ari/pdf/TR_1225.pdf

From their Technical Report (my bolding): "The significance of the research is that it provides further evidence to
evaluate a theory that defines intelligence as information processing ability (Fagan, 1992, 2000).
Current research on a theory of intelligence as information processing finds racial differences in
IQ to be due to cultural factors. A test of information processing is the first valid, culture-fair test
of intelligence."

So it depends on what is measured as "intelligence" in an IQ test in order for the test to be valid. I wouldn't write off an IQ test as quickly as you did.

Many atheists I've observed don't appear more rational than theists. they still react on gut triggers to a number of things, just like theists do.

OK, it is possible for both groups of people to be reactive. However, when it comes to arguments, theists (especially on this forum) usually have theirs picked apart because they are trying to support an argument for the existence of an imaginary being (aka God). Or do you think that is rational, Ricky?

[jaimehlers]

You guys do realize that the 6-point difference was from an average of 97 for religious people to an average of 103 for atheistic people, right?  Please also note that the 11-point difference was from an average of 95 for the very conservative, to an average of 106 for the very liberal.

Neither of those are what I would consider "very stunning".  Anywhere in the IQ range of 90 to 109 falls squarely in the 'average' range, which covers 50% of all humans.  Furthermore, IQ is best described as a measure of "academic intelligence".  It is not a good measure of overall intelligence, nor is it something that should be taken at face value based on one study.  Furthermore, if I'm understanding the study correctly, the IQ tests were done when they were in school, whereas the judgments about atheist/religious and conservative/liberal were done when they were adults.  In other words, there's no way to really tell where they stood philosophically when they were in school, or what their IQ results might have been when they were adults.  And there's no way to tell how they might have changed over that six or seven year period of time.

Also, I'd caution against the idea that this has anything to do with rational or irrational thought.  IQ is not a good descriptor for anything except a person's ability to do well on an intelligence test.  A person with an extremely high IQ can still do poorly in real life; a person with a low-average IQ can excel in real life through hard work and discipline.

[curiousgirl]

Jaime, this is not the only study that concludes that atheists have slightly higher IQs than theists (my bolding):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

In 2008, intelligence researcher Helmuth Nyborg examined whether IQ relates to denomination and income, using representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, which includes intelligence tests on a representative selection of white American youth, where they have also replied to questions about religious belief. His results, published in the scientific journal Intelligence demonstrated that on average, Atheists scored 1.95 IQ points higher than Agnostics, 3.82 points higher than Liberal persuasions, and 5.89 IQ points higher than Dogmatic persuasions. [4] "I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical," says the professor.[5]
 
The relationship between countries' belief in a god and average Intelligence Quotient, measured by Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg.[6]Nyborg also co-authored a study with Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at the University of Ulster, which compared religious belief and average national IQs in 137 countries. [6] The study analysed the issue from several viewpoints. Firstly, using data from a U.S. study of 6,825 adolescents, the authors found that atheists scored 6 g-IQ points higher than those adhering to a religion.

Secondly, the authors investigated the link between religiosity and intelligence on a country level. Among the sample of 137 countries, only 23 (17%) had more than 20% of atheists, which constituted “virtually all... higher IQ countries.” The authors reported a correlation of 0.60 between atheism rates and level of intelligence, which is “highly statistically significant.”

Commenting on the study in The Daily Telegraph, Lynn said "Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population? I believe it is simply a matter of the IQ. Academics have higher IQs than the general population. Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that those with higher IQs tend not to believe in God." [7]

[Samuelxcs]

It should be obvious that atheists have higher IQ's, theists are imbeciles that want to worship a made up God, maybe they have good reasons...but then again...

[Nam]

To the OP, when a non-biased study is done; which this could be -- not stating it isn't --  but, as I was saying, when a non-biased study is done when both sides of the coin is represented by both sides of the coin, then I may tend to agree with such things.  'Til then...

-Nam

[Nam]

I saw a movie last night, it was a western called Desperate Mission (1969) that, one of the characters states [paraphrasing], "...the poor usually turn to their faith [religion] because that's all they have to look forward to in their life...".  Or something like that.

I found that to be profound, especially coming from a tv movie from the 1960's.

-Nam

[Truth OT]

What is intelligence really a function of? Is it one's capacity or is it related to what one's capacity is filled with and used for, in other words, doesn't the knowledge and experiences one has access to go a long way in determining how much "intelligence" one has?

[curiousgirl]

TOT, read my earlier post with the link to the military research. The fair way to measure intelligence, no matter what one's background is, is to define it as information processing ability.

[Truth OT]

TOT, read my earlier post with the link to the military research. The fair way to measure intelligence, no matter what one's background is, is to define it as information processing ability.

Interesting read, but what I don't get is how information processing ability can be objectively verified or how can this processing ability differ from individual to individual where no illness (innately limiting factor) is present.

[rickymooston]

is to define it as information processing ability.

Notice that i didn't say "intelligence can't be measured" but I suspect that measuring in a single number sounds artificial. I also suspect measuring people's religious beliefs leaves a considerable room for doubt as well. In addition, there are likely to be other factors involved that are culturally and regionally dependent.


The brain is a complex organ and I suspect that there are different aspects of said ability and some people don't have all the attributes.

Consider measuring somebody's atheletic ability. How many attributes are involved:
Flexibility
Strength
Endurance
Speed
Reaction time

Intelligence could involve: (off the top of my head)
- short term memory speed
- long term memory speed
- accuracy of memory visual, auditory
- ability to process numbers
- ability to process words (spoken/written)
- ability to solve problems in new ways (note this is hard to measure because the "new" could depend on your background and/or interests)
- knowledge depth
...

An IQ test will be influence by all of the above but it hides a lot of factors.

[curiousgirl]

An excerpt from the army study:

Practically, measuring new learning of initially unknown terms allows for a wealth of items for the creation of alternate forms of
culture-fair tests of new learning.

In other words, the subjects were taught new information that none of them previously knew, then were tested on if they had processed that info correctly.
TOT and Ricky, what other objective ways (backed by evidence) would you support to measure intelligence? I have already provided the most culturally fair, objective way supported by scientific research that I can find. Yet you still criticize it.

[Historicity]

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.

"I can safely say, my IQ is better than 3 standard deviations above average," said one of the geek candidates on Ashton Kutcher's Beauty and the Geek.

From reading the comments above I'm the only one who gets his joke.

Which is?  He was simply stating the definition of an IQ of 130.

100 IQ is not a quantity of something you have.  You do not have an IQ.  IQ is where you are in the population that was tested.  100 IQ is not only average it is the designation of average.

There are 5 correct definitions of "average".  That makes it a colloquial term unacceptably murky in statistics.  In the above text I meant the arithmetic mean.  Since intelligence is normally distributed[1] the median and the mean will be the same.

Having tabulated a population[2] we can calculate the standard deviation[3].

The same decision to call the mean IQ 100 included a decision to call the standard deviation 10.

A concrete fact to understand this is that 68% of the population have IQs from 90 to 110 because in a normal distribution[4] the standard deviations next to the mean take in 34%.

The researcher's research sounds to me like a waste.   People who go to college have been filtered for higher IQ.  They wouldn't have been admitted.  In college they get, for instance, the details of geology and the vast number of known things about it for which creation has no explanation.  They will learn the claims of other religions.  It is well known that makes some percentage of college students into atheists. 

We have had a number of fanatical believers who have dedicated fine intelligence into detailed apologetics.  You can be warped and intelligent. 

Standard_deviation^Wiki
Normal_distribution^Wiki

(I had a couple semesters of statistics in college.  Can't say I'm good at it but I know what I know.)

1.	A tech term in statistics which doesn't mean the same as colloquial usage.
2.	Tech term in statistics -- it means the data set, not necessarily people.
3.	I know someone with a master's degree who heard me refer to the "standard deviation of a normal population" and thought I was talking about homosexuality.
4.	Synonyms: Gaussian distribution, Mexican hat distribution, Bean distribution, etc.

[curiousgirl]

The researcher's research sounds to me like a waste.   People who go to college have been filtered for higher IQ.  They wouldn't have been admitted.  In college they get, for instance, the details of geology and the vast number of known things about it for which creation has no explanation.  They will learn the claims of other religions.  It is well known that makes some percentage of college students into atheists. 

Students can learn that information in high school history and science classes. Evolution, geology, the history of religion and basic philosophy are all things that are taught in high school, and they are all things that would plant a seed that might lead one to question their faith if they are intelligent enough.

Also, read my last post. Do you have any evidence that there is a better, more objective way to measure intelligence? I provided the military study to address this problem, as I posted earlier.

We have had a number of fanatical believers who have dedicated fine intelligence into detailed apologetics.  You can be warped and intelligent.

OK. Let me ask, do you think that intelligence has anything to do with figuring out that God isn't real? Also, do you think that the fanatical believers' detailed apologetics were rational?

[curiousgirl]

To the OP, when a non-biased study is done; which this could be -- not stating it isn't --  but, as I was saying, when a non-biased study is done when both sides of the coin is represented by both sides of the coin, then I may tend to agree with such things.  'Til then...

-Nam

Provide me with your version of a non-biased study if you disagree with this one.

[rickymooston]

TOT and Ricky, what other objective ways (backed by evidence) would you support to measure intelligence?

I suspect and I reserve the right to be totally wrong in this, that seeing "intelligence" as a single attribute isn't a valid way to look at intelligence. This is my intuition speaking; i.e., its a hunch

Processing speed sounds like something with some measure of validity but is that what's always important? Is a person's processing speed high for all tasks?  If a person has poor memory but a very high processing speed, is that person objectively intelligent? Or vice versa?

What about a person with a slow processing speed but a sharper ability perceive certain kinds of patterns? Can such people possibly exist? Or does pattern recognition come out of processing speed?

Yes, being culturally unbiased might suggest that the attrubute being measured is objective. The question is, whether or not said attribute alone is what intelligence should mean.

If I grant your definition of intelligence, I'm still shocked/surprised if the hypothesis that high processing speeds increases the likelihood of a person being an atheist is true. It may still be true. At the end fo the day, what is required to disbelieve in God? We don't see him. We see tons of misery in the world. I think, morons should be just as capable of coming to the non-existence conclusion as geniuses.

Again, i was speaking for intuition when I suggested that I suspect the validity of this study. It isn't a matter of this study per se but any study. There are a lot of experimental design errrors that can be made here. The study is something that is inherently difficult to execute properly.

[rickymooston]

Students can learn that information in high school history and science classes. Evolution, geology, the history of religion and basic philosophy are all things that are taught in high school, and they are all things that would plant a seed that might lead one to question their faith if they are intelligent enough.

Depends on what the foundation of their faith is and what they believe. A while ago, a study by skeptic magazine showed the co-relation between general science knowledge (measured by knowledge of facts) and supernatural beliefs didn't make a difference. Their pool was undergraduate students at a major college.

You don't need to look deep into science to doubt God. Some people use their intelligence to construct elaborate ways that religion is true.

[curiousgirl]

At the end fo the day, what is required to disbelieve in God? We don't see him. We see tons of misery in the world. I think, morons should be just as capable of coming to the non-existence conclusion as geniuses.

If only it were so...

Again, i was speaking for intuition when I suggested that I suspect the validity of this study. It isn't a matter of this study per se but any study. There are a lot of experimental design errrors that can be made here. The study is something that is inherently difficult to execute properly.

Difficult does not entail invalid. It's fine to have an intuition, and to use it, but how does that disprove the study?

You don't need to look deep into science to doubt God. Some people use their intelligence to construct elaborate ways that religion is true.

Does that mean that their elaborately constructed "arguments" are rational or supported by science? Not necessarily.

[rickymooston]

If only it were so...

It is so. Stupid atheists most definitely exist. Why does anybody believe in God in the first place? Some people don't even believe that we went to the moon.

Look at the 911 conspirators.

Does that mean that their elaborately constructed "arguments" are rational or supported by science? Not necessarily.

Well, in the case of the two people I had in mind, they had expert knowledge in some difficult fields (electrical engineering) and mathematics. I don't think they were experts in biology.     Michael Behe is probably a genius and so is William Demsky.

The details of modern science are extremely complex. My phsyicist grandfather made the claim that he knew nothing about physics. He meant it. The field is so vast.

At the end of the day, we are all taking a huge number of results on faith.

Unanswered questions exist. You can take some favorite theist proofs such as Kalam. The argument has holes but it isn't totally brain dead. Some intelligent people take this as a sign post to God and proceed ahead based on fiath and personal experience.

[curiousgirl]

It is so. Stupid atheists most definitely exist. Why does anybody believe in God in the first place? Some people don't even believe that we went to the moon.

Look at the 911 conspirators.

I understand that stupid atheists exist. I simply disagreed that " morons should be just as capable of coming to the non-existence conclusion as geniuses." Obviously, they have different levels of intelligence, hence we differentiate by calling them "morons" and "geniuses". Stupid atheists may not have necessarily thought through the nonexistence of God in a logical manner. Unfortunately, not every atheist is rational.

At the end of the day, we are all taking a huge number of results on faith.

I can't agree with this statement. Especially the "we are all" part. I prefer to have some sort of evidence or logical reason rather than relying on faith to believe something.

Unanswered questions exist. You can take some favorite theist proofs such as Kalam. The argument has holes but it isn't totally brain dead. Some intelligent people take this as a sign post to God and proceed ahead based on fiath and personal experience.

If the argument has holes, it is invalid. Therefore, if they "take this as a sign post to God and proceed ahead based on faith and personal experience," then they are being irrational.

[jetson]

One distinction in the discussion is that theists are making empty claims to which they have no facts or evidence to support.  They are asserting their belief in something imaginary, an idea created by ancient humans and carried forward through time.  They are not thinking at all, they are making shit up, or simply believing shit they were told. 

The atheist, regardless of IQ, or knowledge in any specific area of expertise, is saying, "pics or it didn't happen."  To which the theists have continued their unfortunate stance of faith and scripture and ancient dogma...yadda yadda yadda, mumble mumble razzle fratz. 

It's a bullshit story told throughout history, that most modern humans know is pure crap, but are too afraid to consider, or talk about, or accept from the humans who are not afraid to do so - the atheists.

We rock, they don't.  And we all know it, and it probably pisses them off to no end, knowing that we have always had the upper hand.

[curiousgirl]

We rock, they don't.  And we all know it, and it probably pisses them off to no end, knowing that we have always had the upper hand.

And we have slightly higher IQs. 

[jetson]

We rock, they don't.  And we all know it, and it probably pisses them off to no end, knowing that we have always had the upper hand.

And we have slightly higher IQs. 

Yes, we do.

[rickymooston]

Stupid atheists may not have necessarily thought through the nonexistence of God in a logical manner.

Precisely. I never said the same quality of thought was involved in both cases. Personality may be another factor in believing in God in the first place. If you never believe in God, no intellectual feat is required to disbelieve in God.  The best argument for the non-existence of God is Russel's tea pot. It is not a very complex argument.  It can be understood by somebody with the brain of pea, if that person is unbiased on the topic.

Unfortunately, not every atheist is rational.

More precisely, people are not necessarily rational about every aspect of their lives. Most people have biases. The book the political brain may partially discuss why some people are religious or not. It discusses the psychology of bias and of belonging, in the context of politics.

(*clips out my own statement*)

I can't agree with this statement. Especially the "we are all" part. I prefer to have some sort of evidence or logical reason rather than relying on faith to believe something.

If you don't agree, you probably don't quite understand what I was trying to say. The body of knowledge of our science is too vast for any human to completely verify on his or her own. In theory, it all can be verified and is reproducible but in practice, we have to rely on the results of others without ever checking them.

For example, I believe evolution is true. I can cite some of the basic pieces of evidence involved but I've not seen said evidence gathered first hand and I don't have the background or knowledge to obtain it. At the end of the day, I have a faith in the integrity of the scientific establishment.

Now, I have a science degree and I've conducted a small number of experiments myself. My grandfather was a nuclear phsyicist and I've talked to quite a few scientists in my lifetime.

[plethora]

The OP says that atheists score better on the IQ exam than theists do. Okay, that's nice.

Does the IQ exam cover every aspect of a person's intelligence and accurately represent it on a scale? NO.

Is it the most objective and overall best way to measure certain types of intelligence or facets of intelligence that a person may posses? YES.

Can a person who scored an IQ of 100 be more 'intelligent' than one who scored '130'?
In certain ways, YES. They can be more skilled in specific tasks, more experienced in certain situations or simply make overall better life choices. After all, Stephen Hawking is married to an abusive woman and I am not.

Einstein would probably have scored a lot higher than I would on an IQ exam. However, his language skills sucked ass. His native language was German and he spoke English slowly and with the thickest German accent you can think of.

I actually have a high ability for learning languages. I speak/read/write English, Spanish and Italian at a native level. I can also carry on conversations in Portuguese and French and read them pretty well. I also play several instruments, particularly the guitar. When it comes to language skills or shredding on the guitar, I kick Einstein's ass.

So what the hell is intelligence anyway? Processing speed? Memory? Abilities?

... and why do people insist on labeling a person as intelligent or stupid. We are all intelligent and stupid at the same time. It depends what aspect of our lives and abilities we're looking at specifically.