Talk:Religiosity and intelligence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Metanalysis" or bias

I removed the section titled metanalysis, because it contains an non-neutral POV source. I do not feel any regret after I saw liberal deletion of my objections by the non-theists here. Will be glad to get into an edit war.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What is it that makes you believe that all sources must be neutral? The threshhold for sources is reliability and verifiability. If you look at the Free Inquiry (magazine) article, the publication looks very reliable to me: Paul Kurtz is editor in chief, and people like Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are regular contributors. The WP:NPOV policy requires that all significant points of view be presented in a neutral tone. But not that no "points of view" should be presented at all. Removing text because you do not agree with the point of view of the source is not supported by any Wikipedia policy. In fact, this issue is specifically addressed in Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Silly rabbit (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm getting you all wrong, Jackkalpakian, but you appear, IMHO, to have been baiting for a fight since your first edit on this page , making constant false accusations and assumptions about people's motives. Which is a pity, because it diminishes your case on this edit. ^{(happy to discuss this on my talk page if you desire).}

I think the issue is not so much NPOV, but reliability. The journal is not vetted by the scholarly community or, as far as I can see [1] , recommended in scholarly bibliographies _{and is possibly extremist.}

Additionally, we can look at the quality of the meta analysis itself. I don't know if this is delving into WP:OR here, but many (NOT ALL) of the articles he bases his conclusions on have nothing to do with religiousness or, alternatively, intelligence, and the authors he is quoting do not claim that they do. On several occasions he equates "liberal" attitudes with a lesser degree of religiosity, a non sequitor. On several occasions he equates intelligence with prominence (eg counting those with who's Who entries, or those "judged by senior colleagues to be outstanding"). I could go on- there are other non sequitors and unusual measures. The quoted statement that "it was easy to find fault with the studies he reviewed, "for all were imperfect", but collectively they showed a correlation, is truly unusual logic.

If he had stayed with a lesser number of articles, perhaps limiting himself to those made after 1950, scholars might accept the article. As it stands, it appears to be written for a secular humanist popular entertainment audience, not a scholarly or encyclopedic audience.

Beckwith's POV may be better expressed by other citations in the article. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Simply put your thesis and the supposed thesis of all these studies, conducted by non-theists, is that theists are less intelligent than they are. There is a MASSIVE problem with coding, there are massive problems with definitions, there are massive problems with the fact that the persons conducting these studies, including Dawkins, are a party in what is an avowedly political struggle. Now if you wish there to be a situation where there is co-existence, perhaps you should not rush to delete others' talk-oriented objections to what you pretend to be NPOV research. Let us begin by you restoring my deleted objection. --Jackkalpakian (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please remember not to disrupt Wikipedia in order to prove a WP:POINT. You have so far threatened edit warring, and now you demand that your (quite inflammatory) soapboxing ([2]) be restored. If you have an objection, then please state it in plain language without attacking those with whom you disagree. Remember that the goal here is not to fight a battle with those you disagree with, but to attempt to construct a better article. With that in mind, I am restoring the deleted content in the article. Please continue the discussion on how you feel it may be improved. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the reasons for replacing the deleted section, but I don't feel like my objections (above) were addressed. In short

1. while the language and rationale for the removal was innappropriate, the removal itself appears justified.

2. Free Enquiry does not meet Wikipedia reliability standards;

3. The article is not of sufficient quality to ever be published as a peer reviewed article.

Please review my comment above and see if you agree. Sorry if it is a bit verbose.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing your comment above, I am forced to agree with you that the sources are not reliable for inclusion here. Thank you for waiting patiently until the situation had defused. Silly rabbit (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following text: (title) Meta-analyses

In 1986, the Council for Secular Humanism's Free Inquiry magazine summarized studies on religiosity and intelligence. In it Burnham Beckwith summarized 43 studies on religiosity and its relation with attributes that he considered were positively linked with intelligence: IQ, SAT scores, academic ability and other measures of overall "success". Although conceding that it was easy to find fault with the studies he reviewed, "for all were imperfect," he contended that the studies he examined, taken together, provided strong evidence for an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious faith in the United States.

definitions, use of education

i have expanded the definitions section, but would appreciate someone having a second check over the section. I have noted that most of the researchers have not linked education with intelligence. The consensus during the deletion discussion seemed to be that it was appropriate to expand the definition of intelligence to include educational levels as well as IQ., without which this looks like a pretty empty area of research. Since i am biased against this measure, feel free to check my edits for neutrality.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the section on religiosity and education does not belong in this article. Education is another topic, with questionable relationship to intelligence. In the US, for example, a large percentage of students go to college, while in Europe fewer do. This fact does not mean US citizens are smarter than Europeans. That we elected George W. Bush not once but twice is a clear indication that this is not true. IQ, for all its faults, is the gold standard. (I am a psychology professor, if that makes any difference). Cgboeree (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not the first psychologist to make this point, BTW. I'm not sure how to proceed. Deleting the education sections leaves us with a blog and an unsubstantiated newspaper article as sources, but deleting the article is rejected by people wanting to accept these measures which, at first glance, make this appear to be an area of much research. Any suggestions? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

behaviour vs belief

I have reverted a deletion of a heading, as i think it is important to differentiate between studies of religious belief and studies of religious behaviour, as per the descriptions in the lede. Results from both seem quite different.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pointers to original research 2

As noted above, a citation for the Nyborg research proved elusive. I'm guessing that this was because the research hadn't been published until recently, and is the same research as recently appeared later in the same section. I haven't read the original research (abstracted |here) but it involves Nyborg and had a couple of non peer reviewed drafts, which might be what the news articles were referring to. As the wikipedia article reads currently, it reports on a number of newspaper articles, and might be better simplified into one citation if anyone can clarify that the news articles all relate to the one reliable source.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nature study of scientists' religious beliefs

I have deleted (again) a reference to the Nature article about the religiosity of scientists, previously discussed here and here and here and here . In short, it relies on the logical fallacy 'scientists are intelligent people. scientists don't believe in god. therefore, intelligent people don't believe in god'. We do have a page on science and religion where it most probably belongs. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

removal of meta- analysis

I have removed reference to '39 studies since 1927.' It is not a reliable source, and the study, as discussed here and here and here uses unusual measures of both intelligence and religiosity, presumably to push a particular point of view. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Confusion about the LDS study

The article describes a 1992 study of Latter-Day Saints in a way that just doesn't make any sense to me. To review, here is what it currently says (minus references):

In contrast, a 1992 study found a significantly high correlation between education and strong religious beliefs in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The subjects were asked to rank their belief (1) That Jesus is the Divine Son of God, the Savior, the Messiah; (2) That Joseph Smith, Jr., was inspired by God in the formation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and (3) that this church has the only current authority to administer the teachings and ordinances of Christ's restored church. 85 percent of the post-graduate subjects returned "strong" or "very strong" agreement with the first statement. Belief in God and in the divinity of Jesus Christ showed a similarly high proportion. The percentages contrasted enough with mainstream survey data that the study was performed a second time, with the same results.

The first thing that caught my eye was "85 percent" part. So then I thought, "Compared to what? Is that high, low, normal...?" So I wanted to figure out what the control group would be. It was then that I realised that this was actually a study of the religiosity of people who are religious (see the first sentence). If you're excluding the non-religious, why is it surprising that they are more religious than average? Perhaps I'm simply missing something, but it looks like they picked a group predisposed to give them the answer they wanted, rather than a good random sample. Admittedly I didn't read the studies, I don't have the time or energy right now, which is why I'm asking for input instead of simply deleting it. So, is this a decent study and I'm simply missing something, or is my baloney detector right and the study is hopelessly broken by design?
Even if I have missed something, there are other problems. First, whether the "85 percent" is significantly higher or lower than the control group should be included somewhere, and the control group needs to be briefly described as well. Just saying "85 percent" by itself is meaningless; you need something to compare it to. Also, the "85 percent" was for strongly people agreeing with "the first statement", which was the belief that "Jesus is the Divine Son of God, the Savior, the Messiah", but then the next sentence basically says that "belief in God and in the divinity of Jesus Christ" was "similarly high". Something is wrong there. It seems to be saying the ratio of belief in item (1) was similar to the ratio of belief in item (1). Again, perhaps I'm missing some subtle point, but it looks like they're just a rephrasing of the same thing, in which case it would be more surprising if the ratio wasn't similar. If that isn't broken, it certainly needs to be clarified. -- HiEv 09:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I find the studies a bit confusing as well. I think the "item (1) was similar to item (1)" is a badly written "study A returned similar results to study B", but not worth correcting since both are off topic. I think that section belongs more in the Religiosity and scientists article than this one. The studies (it seems there are more than one) are about a high proportion of scientist mormons having strong religious beliefs. It's not about a high proportion of well educated mormons having strong religious beliefs, and it is a bit too much of a stretch to suggest it is. I will remove that section. It appears, though I can't be sure, that the later paragraph about US Mormons under "Studies comparing religious behaviour and educational attainment" is more relevant, but I can't find the original study, so it, too, may not be a good fit. I will leave it as it stands.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The study of Mormons in the section titled "Studies comparing religious behaviour and educational attainment" has several issues:

• It is not clarified to the reader that the study is only a correlation between those who have earned a university or postgraduate degree and are still Mormon, which could cause a lot of confusion (generally speaking the more religious Mormons would be more likely to remain Mormon after something as life-changing as college) to a casual reader.
• It is not mentioned that the study referenced was conducted at BYU, which is far from an unbiased university, particularly with regards to Mormons.
• There does not seem to be an easy way to view the study being referred to.
• It refers to multiple studies, of which not even one can be found.

-Aeonoris (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"virtually all .. higher IQ nations"

I have made a minor edit to the Nyborg quote. If this appears to anyone to be original research, or a misquote, please let me know. The original article states: "It will be seen that in only 17% of the countries (23 out of 137) does the proportion of the population who disbelieve in God rise above 20%. These are virtually all the higher IQ countries,” I suspect that Nyborg meant that those with more than 20% atheists were all in the higher IQ category, not all in the higher IQ category had more than 20% atheists, which is clearly not true (take a look at the graph for a quick reference- there are a reasonable number of high IQ nations with 20% or less atheists).WotherspoonSmith (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edit is surely correct. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A small number of studies?

I have reverted an edit changing 'a small number of studies' to 'multiple studies'. As far as I can see, there are few studies directly relating to "relationships between intelligence and religiosity," though there are many on atheist websites claiming to be about that topic. They tend to be about: - religiosity and membership of certain groups (eg scientists or mensa members) - religiosity and educational levels - intelligence and how liberal or conservative a person is It seems it is not a clearcut area- religiosity is hard to define, intelligence is often ill defined. Comparing the two seems a difficult endeavour. Does this seem like correct reasoning on my part, or should it be reverted back again? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Censorship of this site

Why are you deleting my posts Smith?

--Jackkalpakian (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, your posts, and subsequent discussion, were not "censored", but they were removed (and not by myself) as per WP:TALK.- "Talk pages are not forums" WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The article as it stands now is closest to being NPOV; the original text oozed of an attempt to brand religious people as feeble-minded and impose a guardianship of the atheist crowd on the rest of us.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you can't see that this article still bears traces of the "the more religious you are the dumber you are" point of view, which happens to be false. While history proves some do hijack religion for their own purposes (I'll reserve comment on their IQ level - you can decide that for yourself) history also shows that many of those who were quite religious also brought us significant basic scientific breakthroughs as was noted in the section below. Why isn't any of THIS FACTUAL DATA presented here? Why is the only data this article presents the view that yes, manipulated statistics and poorly executed and interpreted studies do seem to show that the less you believe in some higher power the smarter you are?

And don't forget - the only true test of who turns out to be smarter (on this narrow topic, at least) - the spiritual person or the nonbeliever - will come after they die and one is proven right, the other wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.230.247 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Charlton (2009)

Medical Hypotheses is not a reliable source. It poses as a scientific journal, but it's not peer reviewed and reguraly publishes pseudoscience.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The journal is published by Elsevier, the leading academic publisher. Prof Charlton is on the staff of University of Buckingham. Looks OK to me, but a conversation at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Medical Hypotheses agrees that it does not conduct proper peer reviews before publication. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent deletion

I have expanded my rather terse edit summary for this article at the talk page of Atheism, where the original contributor has asked for comment. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

China vs western

In China, unlike most of western countries, religious population growth sharply. Religious growth in educated (properly higher intelligence) community are more than less educated one. I quote two article one here (in Chinese), and one here (also chinese).

In many western countries, atheist iq are higher than religious, in China, the contrast applies, religious (esp. pro-western religious like Christianity) often smarter than non-religious. So I would said the religiosity and intelligence correlation research may have cultural bias.

As you know, China is a state atheism country. The government promote atheism in schools, unlike most of western countries. People believing religion are probably able to choose their own religion instead of following what the government tough to do.

So, I would say the correlation is probably not due to religious, but the ability for challenging the knowledge taught in school, and a liberal mind. Smarter people can choose their religion by their own mind, not just simply follow government and parents step and practice. Joe2008 (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Another example is in Hong Kong, according to the University Grant Committee [Statistics of non-academic information of first-year student intake http://cdcf.ugc.edu.hk/cdcf/searchStatisticReport.do;jsessionid=DE62B34BB0E8B2829A474C0A7199800C#], there are 21.4% are protestant Christian and nearly 3% are Catholic Christian, and only less than 2% Buddhist, while in Hong Kong general public, only 10% are Christian (only half are protestant), and the majority and Buddhist These example are show that culture difference may play more important roles on these religious-and-IQ or religious-and-education correlation statistics findings. 203.186.23.38 (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

country iq vs country religiosity-----can't give firm conclusions

I noticed no one brought up a problem with the average iq by country versus religiosity by country comparison called the ecological fallacy. Look it up. Basically, if you are interested in individuals you need to analyze the data at that level. At the country level the correlation can be exactly opposite that given at the individual level. It sounds counterintuitive but is absolutely true. Read up on it. I'm not saying throw out that section, but it should be at least brought up. By the way, I'm an atheist, so I have no dog in that fight in terms of what the study shows. If you need an example, think of jerrymandering with voting districts. It is similar analyticaly.

First attempt to honour this suggestion made.-Tesseract²(talk) 21:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

My edit was removed as POV. If you find a reliable source making that claim or critique I could bring it back??-Tesseract²(talk) 16:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for a title move

I am concerned about the title of this article ... and would like to start a discussion about potential alternatives. Before we start... please read: WP:Article titles#Titles containing "and". While I don't think the intent was to be non-neutral, by contrasting religiousness with intelligence and implying that they are incomparable or opposites... the current title can be misunderstood that way. So... Any suggestions on alternatives? Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion. Perhaps something like "_____ factors affecting religiosity" with a qualifier limiting the factors to human ones. That name won't do, I think; I'm just thinking out loud. Here are a few thoughts on a name change, if that is what's decided on:

• 1. It should allow the creation of an article that should be of encyclopedic value. I.e., not so broad that it's meaningless and not so narrow that it can't accomodate items of interest to those who would arrive at such an article on purpose. (For example, I think the factoids about the two scientific bodies would be of interest to someone who was interested in this area.)
• 2. I favor a broader title that could comprise sub-articles since that could help those who are researching in this area.
• 3. Of course, it would have to describe material that fits without WP:OR or synthesis concerns. A broader scope should alleviate that to some degree. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to add/ inform the discussion:

The Human intelligence template lists a few "factors relating to intelligence"- and there are others on this theme:

• Environment and intelligence
• Fertility and intelligence
• Health and intelligence
• Neuroscience and intelligence
• Race and intelligence
• Sex and intelligence

... so any decision would affect those articles as well.

The idea has come up at the race and intelligence forums more than once, here and here and probably in other places. There is an active panel discussion over there- I'm sure there would be people with an opinion worth checking on the concept. I don't have a strong opinion either way- but wonder if, since many of these "x and intelligence" issues are the focus of a body of research (far moreso than "religiosity and intelligence"), the implication is being made by the researchers rather than wikipedia.

but really, I'm just "thinking out loud".. in writing.. as well.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

In response to some discussion on my talk page, I'll offer my thoughts on one of my recent edits.

I combined two sections that had "studies" in the header into "religiosity and education". Since this sentence appears in the first section "Others have attempted to measure intelligence indirectly by looking at individuals' or group's educational attainment, although this risks bias from other demographic factors, such as age, income, gender and cultural background, all of which can affect educational attainment", and education was discussed in the two sections that I condensed, I thought that it was reasonable to include other information on education besides studies. For example, I added the passages about Royal Society fellows and the American National Academy of Sciences.

Basically, I was looking for a section to insert the passages I added. The two sections I condensed had material about education already, so that seemed like the likely location. But, the titles seemed to limit the content of those sections to only studies. My "solution" was one way to handle it. It may not be the best way and I'm certainly open to changes.

Since the article already notes that some define, at least in part, intelligence with education, I see no reason why education cannot be discussed in at least one section in this article. If there is already a consensus here regarding that, please point me to it. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Airborne84. I raised the concerns on your talk page (sorry I forgot to sign it- hope it was clear anyway). I wasn't concened so much about about the use of education as a measure of intelligence as the use of membership of Royal Society and NAS as measures of intelligence. Those studies do link eminent scientists and religiosity, but not intelligence and religiosity. These have been previously discussed at length here and here and here and here . In short, it relies on the logical fallacy 'scientists are intelligent people. scientists don't believe in god. therefore, there is a link between intelligent people and belief in god'. I don't think we can use religiosity of eminent scientists as evidence of any link between intelligence and religiosity any more than we can use the religiosity of eminent politicians, eminent social scientists, eminent capitalists, eminent socialists, plumbers etc.

It's a bit of a stretch to measure intelligence by education, but we can allow it since the researchers have done so. I think it's going a bit far to measure it by looking at one employment sector.

We do have a page on science and religion where it most probably belongs.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article links the idea of education and intelligence already. So, the section on religiosity and education doesn't have to link the Royal Society and NAS directly to intelligence, it just has to link them to education. There's no issue with noting that correlation doesn't equal causation if that concerns some editors here.

My only concern with moving the material to the "Science and religion" article is that Wikipedia is a work in progress. The two bodies listed are scientific ones, certainly. But other examples of non-scientific but highly-educated bodies might be added to the mix, which would not necessarily belong in the "Science and religion" article. To me, the key litmus test is: would the average reader of this article find the material useful and interesting? I suggest that, with further edits and additions, this section could be.

Of course, if other editors weigh in otherwise, I'll bow to the consensus. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

the article does link intelligence with education. It does not link intelligence with membership of the NAS. The researchers do not make this link either- making that leap would be original research which "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". Creating a list of elites and their religiosity would also be OR.

"Useful and interesting" perhaps, but also deceptive. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that it would be a problem if it was a contentious claim that the members of those two societies are highly educated, requiring an OR leap. I don't think it is contentious. But, if other editors think it is, please weigh in. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

could you please take another look at the "synthesis" section of the OR page- I don't think it's about contentious claims, it's about drawing a conclusion that the original research does not. the authors draw conclusions about religiosity and membership fo the academies- not religiosity and intelligence, or religiosity and educational achievements. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but disagree that it's precluded by the synthesis section. Perhaps we should see what other editors have to say. I'll adhere to whatever the consensus is on this. Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for assistance on the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. I can see nothing in the linked articles that suggests anything by the authors about intelligence. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks for the note. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems we're not getting far asking for help from others. I can't see why you disagree that it is precluded by the synthesis section. The authors of those articles say nothing about intelligence. I think this is a clear cut example, very close to the example given on the "synthesis" section of the OR page.

If we leave the reference, it opens the door to a whole list of OR/ synthesis- a list of the religiosity of prominent (not neccesarily more intelligent or even more educated) people from all sorts of other kinds of occupations.

(as an aside,The corresponding research on social scientists raises the issue on whether belief in god is an accurate measure of spirituality/ religiosity).

could you (or any other editor) please revisit the synthesis section and tell me where my logic is wrong.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The authors of some of those articles do discuss intelligence. For example, in the Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' article, intelligence is in the title. The writer discussed the Royal Society fellows and members of the American National Academy of Sciences. Is your issue that the Telegraph is not a reliable source? --Airborne84 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

My issue is that the researchers on the NAS/Royal Society made no such connection. Lynn's research, which does connect religiosity and intelligence, is the focus of the headline and is in the article. The only people connecting NAS/ Royal Society membership and religiosity are the telegraph and this wikipedia article. In that context, yes, I think it is not a reliable enough source to connect the two, when no one else does. Frankly, this is the first time I have considered that a connection being made in a newspaper article could possibly be considered a reliable source of research. Do you consider that the Telegraph is a reliable source of original research? WotherspoonSmith

I was just trying to understand what you meant by your statement, "The authors of those articles say nothing about intelligence." --Airborne84 (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, there's no need for us to rehash our respective positions. If you still feel strongly that the religiosity and education material should be removed from this article, you could list this at Wikipedia:Third opinion. We should get another editor to weigh in that way. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

fair enough. By "the authors of those articles" I was referring to the authors of the research/ reliable sources. Will seek third opinion WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm from the 30 board. I think that it's definitely synthesis to say that Research A says more educated people are more intelligent; Research B says more educated people are less likely to believe in God; therefore, more intelligent people are less likely to believe in God.

That being said, the Telegraph article does have one researcher saying that more intelligent people are less likely to believe in God. I suppose you could add that to the Wiki article, but based on the Telegraph article, it's really just one guy, and you would have to also indicate the other researcher mentioned who disagrees with his conclusion.

I did a bit of Googling, and ran across this article: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201004/why-atheists-are-more-intelligent-the-religious I then found this: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201004/jews-jesuits-geniuses-the-religion-iq-link-is-just-corre

I suspect that you're not going to find a clear cut answer to this question. You can include some of the data, and perhaps you will find that atheists and scientist tend to have above-average IQs. But, I would be surprised to find that religiosity is a reliable indicator of IQ.JoelWhy (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Wothersmith, feel free to make changes to the article based on the above. I won't object. I suspect that there are studies out there that can link the threads together in a way that doesn't violate WP:OR or synth here, but I don't have time to dig into it right now. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Link between atheism and intelligence

A scientific study related to the article's subject [3].--Airborne84 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And another couple [4], [5]. --Airborne84 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Studies examining religiosity and emotional intelligence?

I stumbled on this article and read through the talk page. The section on studies examining religiosity and emotional intelligence seems poorly researched. It has three citations that state emotional intelligence is a questionable measurement. It also says the study was based off of perceived emotional intelligence and offered no data whatsoever to corroborate it's findings. I think the page as a whole is slightly POV and this section was an attempt to mend that. Expansion would be good but I don't know if this section adds anything worthwhile to the conversation.--184.153.119.55 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)B

I agree that there is too little research, and that the concept of Emotional Intelligence is controversial. On the other hand, I think what little bit we have to put in that section is interesting. That study suggests it is not mere church attendance, but commitment to attitudes and practice with people that make a person more emotionally intelligent.-Tesseract²(talk) 12:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Religiosity AND intelligence... AND education" ?!?

I've been occasionnaly "visiting" this article for the last few years, but it just struck me recently that... inserting a (big) section on education in an article about Religiosity and intelligence, is rather an audacious stance to take !
I don't wanna start a new debate similar to that (painful) fuzz about "scientists and atheists" ^{(see all edits above..)}, but then... doesn't it seem a bit borderline to mix education (which is a noble activity, don't misread me) with intelligence ?
This topic has been suggested several times in this Talk-page (here) and (here), for example... Cgboeree wrote : "I think the section on religiosity and education does not belong in this article. Education is another topic, with questionable relationship to intelligence. In the US, for example, a large percentage of students go to college, while in Europe fewer do. This fact does not mean US citizens are smarter than Europeans."
Even WotherspoonSmith, who is all the time (regularly) fighting or deleting new proposals ;-/, wrote : "You are not the first psychologist to make this point, BTW. I'm not sure how to proceed. ^{(the bold type is mine)}. Deleting the education sections leaves us with a blog and an unsubstantiated newspaper article as sources ^{(this was written in march 2008, and the article has grown up since..)}, but deleting the article is rejected by people wanting to accept these measures which, at first glance, make this appear to be an area of much research. Any suggestions? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... here his my suggestion. It's very simple : as...

• there have been lots of discussing about the equivalence between "scientists" (i.e. assuming that they are highly educated people) and "intelligent" persons, and that hasn't been really settled up to now ;
• on the other hand, it appeared unavoidable, given the developments of this "sub-topic", to gather several paragraphs, scattered in several places in the article, to form the "1.3" title : Studies exploring religiosity and educational attainment.

Thus, the job is already half done ! Most simply, I suggest "exfiltrating" the (large) section 1.3 from this article, by creating a WP-page entitled "Religiosity and education" !
As a reminder, there are already plenty of "and"pages on similar topics like "Religion and Nothingness", "Religion and agriculture", "Religion and business", "Religion and environmentalism", "Religion and health", "Religion and sexuality", etc. ! ^{(I know religiosity and religion are not the same... It's just some examples of "ands"...)}

I really think that, repatriating all the paragraphs on education into such a visible article would be the most elegant solution —being understood that, of course, these paragraphs would have to be wikified (summary, etc.), and an "encyclopedic text" would need to be written, to introduce this newly born article ! (Maybe I could try to do it, if there isn't any fundamental objection).
--Mezzkal (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think making a "religion and education" page would be a good idea. Maybe we can make a short summary in this article and forward the details via "See also" to the main "religion and education" article - if it is created. That way we don't lose the spirit of what already in this article. I agree with WotherspoonSmith in that if the education section is removed, then you just have a blog-like article left over. Intelligence studies overlap with lots of phenomena and the research often is grey between polarized understandings intelligence. For instance, the "why really smart people do dumb things" idea has been studied and resulted in conclusions such as rationality is not equivalent to intelligence (What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought - Keith Stanovich). I feel the pain some editors are experiencing. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

100% ok with your proposal to leave a small résumé of that side of the "problem" (if there is such a thing as a problem !), and send readers eventually interested in this topic to the article-to-be !

As I said above ^{(in superscript)}, I don't think the remaining paragraphs would look like a (bloody) blog.. On the contrary, I feel that this article has rather fallen into the trap of "scientism" —i.e.: dealing almost exclusively with supposedly unbeatable demonstrations, drawn from impeccable "scientific" studies...

Now... If we rely specifically on the threshold of WP:PG, it's not unthinkable to approach Religiosity and intelligence thru contradictory opinions (WP:NPOV), emitted on that topic by contradictory thinkers... provided that they are recognized as "authorised persons" in that field, of course (WP:GNG).

But I don't want to go further on these perspectives in this thread : it can be the subject of another talk, isn'it ?

--Mezzkal (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing and creating a new article makes good sense to me also.

Re: 'blog'- the actual comment I made way back then was that there were only two other references/ sources in the article- one was a blog, one was a newspaper article (Lynn's research wasn't available, had only been quoted in a Danish newspaper at that time). WotherspoonSmith (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I quite acknowledged that fact ---that's why i wrote : ^{(this was written in march 2008, and the article has grown up since..)} in my frst post on this thread ;-) ...

Then, since yesterday, i consequently transferred (under the applause of the crowd) the contents of the "educational part" of this article, into a brand-new article titled "Religiosity and education"...

I also wrote an intro to that new-born, and an "adapted" résumé for this from-now-on shrunk section...

--Mezzkal (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There can only be a single purpose for an article like this, and that is to demonstrate that religious people are unintelligent. How many supporting studies were conducted by atheists, and how many by religious scholars? There lies a clue. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Let us remind you that a "study" is a word used in scientific circles to point to a rigorously-conducted research, which musn't take into account the personal thoughts (or "prejudices") of the researcher(s).

Otherwise, it's not a scientific study. Trying to inquire whether the scholars cited in this article were "religious" or "atheists" isn't relevant, as WP sources go, if they're recognized as reliable sources (see WP:RS)

On the other hand, if you know of any reliable source that concludes differently, feel free to insert it at the right place in the article, provided that you also insert the complete references connected to it !

--Mezzkal (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Who are you to use the word "us"? Let me remind you that I've seen a lot of controversial articles allowed to exist on this website. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to try and promote prejudice against a group of people for their religious beliefs. This is like an article that questions the intelligence of people because of their skin color with supposed studies, no difference at all. And people do lots of things in their RIGOROUS studies that shouldn't include that author's personal prejudice. Shouldn't being the key word; a lot different than 'doesn't'. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

1) The word "us", in this situation, is to be understood as "the Wikipedia community". Throughout the years, rules have been drawn by consensus (reminder : WP:CONS, which says : "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals^{(emphasis is mine)}"). Hence, the use of "us"...

2) "Let me remind you that I've seen a lot of controversial articles allowed to exist on this website."

That's exactly the type of argument which is strongly recommended to avoid in the WP guidelines : "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist" (see : WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

3) "This is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to try and promote prejudice against a group of people for their religious beliefs."

First, I didn't try anything.(by the way... WP:NPA : "no personal attacks". Thanx...). I just made a remark that your anger about supposed biased minds concerning the researchers cited in this article is irrelevant, provided WP:RS.

Second : Please... don't presume what I have in mind ! Again, WP:INDCRIT says : "If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that the person hates you, that the person thinks that you are stupid, that the person is stupid, or that the person is mean. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it is best to just leave them alone. What you think is not necessarily right or necessarily wrong—a common example of this is religion. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted yours. Remember that anything written on Wikipedia is kept permanently, even if it is not visible."

"This is like an article that questions the intelligence of people because of their skin color with supposed studies, no difference at all"

Maybe you should think twice before writing "definitive" sentences like : "no difference at all"...

First, because people with green or purple skin, for example, didn't choose the color of their skin ! Moreover, skin is a material product, whereas religion is a product of the mind : you can always change your mind, or even abandon a religion, but green-skinned people cannot change their color !! I think that it shouldn't be difficult to understand...

Second : when you say "like an article that questions the intelligence", you're not showing good faith, 'cause nowhere in WP would such an article be allowed (again... go and review "WP:NPOV" !). Articles, here, are not meant to "question" anything, but to collect accurate, balanced informations...

It's a pity that I should have to remind you (!) of no less than six Wikipedia guidelines, for only one post of yours... Please, try to refrain your everpresent complaining about religions being "martyrized" all along WP's articles. Thanx.

And last : "'Shouldn't' being the key word; a lot different than 'doesn't'."

Let me remind you (which seems to be the catch phrase of this debate..) ...that I didn't use the word 'shouldn't', as you pretend : on the contrary, I used the stronger word 'musn't' ! And even in bold type !

Maybe, you should read more carefully the posts to which you react ?

--Mezzkal (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Am i reading the sources wrongly?

Am I reading the sources wrongly? We've summarised that "in "western" countries, some studies observe that the higher the level of education, the more the religious practices decrease." From what I can see, most of the studies are showing that religious practices increase with education, not decrease. Second opinion, anyone? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey WotherspoonSmith, yes you reading the sources correctly, but the sentence you edited was supposed to cite other studies that conclude "decrease", not "increase". I think the original intention was to show both sides, but only the "increase" had support. I will add "citation needed" on the sentence you just edited since these are two separate ideas. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

WotherspoonSmith... Try to read the summary up to the end ! It's written "some sources tend to notice" [ while ] "other studies tend to show" [ that it ] "turns out to be positive" !

Moreover, even the study conducted inside the United States, "...also concludes that, in the United States and other developed nations, "education raises religious attendance at individual level," while "at the same time, there is a strong negative connection between attendance and education across religious groups within the U.S. and elsewhere." The authors suggest that "this puzzle is explained if education both increases the returns to social connection and reduces the extent of religious belief, " causing more educated individuals to sort into less fervent denominations.

I didn't invent anything, and I just summarized what readers would discover, if by any chance they should be so kind as to click on the link to the "main article" ! ! ! [ Which is, you would agree, the "riason d'être" of any (good) summary ? ]

So... Don't be all the time suspicious that there would be "dark underground manoeuvres", intending to subrepticiously undermine your beloved presence

of the religious approach  :-) !

--Mezzkal (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Conclusions

Why don't we add the conclusion to this article: "Religious people are dumbasses". Hows with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.8.213 (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

- Statistics aren't universal truth; plus, the difference in average IQ rates isn't very high - no more than between men and women. Would you say women are dumbasses? And it's not "how's with me?" but "Who's with me?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.72.137.156 (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure women are actually of higher average IQ ;) Thanks! Fin©™ 14:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Most studies don't find any statistically significant difference in IQ between men and women. 137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not technically correct. Most American IQ tests are specifically designed to have equal outcomes for men and women. So called "culture neutral" IQ tests (where knowledge of any particular language is not required to solve any of the problems) invariably show a 2-3 point advantage for men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.99.200 (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of the word "atheists"

There's something wrong here that is perhaps picking nits however it's fairly significant given the rhetoric of far right wing religious individuals. Specifically, the word "atheists" is usually capitalized by individuals who wish to pretend that atheism is some how a religion, a political party, or a philosophy, some kind of noun.

The article here capitalizes the word "atheists" where it is inappropriate to do so. The capitalization of the term/label is applied by right wing theists much the way they also capitalize the word "white" or "black" when talking about ethnic-based skin hue in an attempt to reclassify racial characteristics as some kind of ideology, right wing theists capitalize words incorrectly specifically to attempt to try to legitimize their unfortunate beliefs.

Theists capitalize "atheists" to try to pretend that the lack of belief in the gods and goddesses is some how itself a religion worthy of being a noun. Finding such capitalization here, I have to point it out and suggest it be fixed. Damotclese (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Tayste (edits) 18:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Bias - advancement of a pov

The article appears to be npov, designed to advance a particular pov - that people who engage in conventional American/fundamentalist/organized religion are less smart that those who are not according to a small group of studies. The article misses totally the history of the subject, e.g., the country vicars of England in the 19th century who researched geology, biology, basic industrial mechanics; the clerics who did basic research in Roman Catholic institutions like Gregor Mendel. The article is about a narrow, current ideology of religion only. It really should be deleted! Fremte (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please! This is a really good article. There is NOTHING POV when a lot of such studies have been done. The article does not "miss totally" any point. It is a nice summary of several research findings that have been published in reputed places. Just because others do not like it does not mean that the article is POV.

• This is a study on the current population. Have any actual statistical studies about the country vicars of England been done? If so that can be added as a section in this article. If not, then that is your original research. The article does not "miss totally" anything except your own original research!

• Also, there are articles on smaller studies in Wikipedia, which nobody wants to have deleted as they are perfectly OK with the subject matter. An example of that is the Iraq Body Count - a single (highly controversial) study.

--SDas (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for just the promotion of some current research, nor is there any requirement that some statistical test be conducted on the value of information. If the article is to stay, then there will need to be some additions. I am not the expert about the history, sociology and philosophy of the acquisition of knowledge that comes to bear on this topic. But it is clear that whomever started the topic did not know the actual breadth of the issue either. Arguments about some completely different topic pertaining to Iraq have no bearing on the merits an quality of the info presented in this article. Fremte (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are many articles on current research. I can supply you with some examples where reserch significantly less meritorious than this one on Religiosity & Intelligence have been included in wikipedia. I gave the example of another topic pertaining to Iraq, which nobody objects. Yes, mentioning that article is absolutely relevant to understand the fact that the same standard for deletion/retention needs to be applied uniformly to all Wikipedia articles. --SDas (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, just because this article lacks some additions, does not qualify it for deletion either. That only makes it rank low on the quality scale. There are even wikipedia articles rated as "stub class" which lack a LOT more additions than this one. How could lacking some additions (that you have not specified) possibly make this article qualify for deletion? --SDas (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

a better comparison might be this article: Race_and_intelligence, which covers the topic in much more depth and provides an history in addition to dealing with current ideas. Fremte (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

So that makes "Race & Intelligence" a better article than this one. How does the existence of a better article possibly qualify this article "Religiosity & Intelligence" for deletion?--SDas (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(Side note: The article that you cite may look better than this one to you, but this article is actually much more mainstream - being researched by none other than people like Richard Dawkins, and being published in highly prestigious publications such as Scientific American and Nature - the standards for publication in journals like Nature are very very rigorous. Unlike the article on Race & Intelligence, the lack of any published research criticizing this one may actually be indicating its veracity. --SDas (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC) )

Because this article has been sitting for a long time and no-one has done the necessary expanision. It is either not a topic of interest or - from seeing the argument over it - a forum for advancing bias that has meant that those who would expand it and have not because they get shot down by those who have deep feelings about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremte (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The argument over this is simply because religious people don't like it. How many atheists or agnostics have objected to the contents in the discussion? But why do you deem the expansion "necessary"? What expansion are we talking about? If you know of any real arguments (not your own original research) that should be added, why don't you simply add it to the main article? Perhaps there are no researched counterarguments to this rock solid article! --SDas (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

just to clarify a few points:

• It's hard to say, as people don't feel the need to state their views when commenting, but there does appear to have been a few athiests/ agnostics objecting to the article in the discussions above. It swings between annoying atheists and theists.
• It is far from a static page, not really "sitting for a long time" without expansion.
• Richard Dawkins does not, to my knowledge, research this topic. He makes passing reference to someone else's study in The God Delusion, stating that theists should be careful when talking about their claims of intellignet role models. We haven't found any others, despite searching his books and website.
• I feel the meta analysis includes articles which do not belong, in order to puch Beckwith's POV. Have a critical look at the source and you might agree. It is not a rock solid article, but is popular to quote on atheist websites, and appears to be the original basis of this article. I will clarify this argument at a future date, when I have time to make my points clearly and succinctly.
• Likewise, the quoted articles in Nature and Scientific America are about how many scientists are atheists/ agnostic/ theists, which they do not in any way link to intelligence. I don't belive it belongs in this article, but it keeps coming back when deleted. Now that there is more of a relevant body to the article, I will try again.
• I do not believe much of the article is pushing a POV, but have my own bias in having added many of the references. As sDas states above, if you find anything to add, or clear reasons to delete, please do.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Dawkins didn't actually "research" this topic. Wrong choice of words. He does mention it in The God Delusion. Also since I haven't participated in this discussion before, I didn't know that there are atheists who objected to this article - I just assumed that only theists would object (I am surprised). As I have library access to Nature and Sciam, I'll verify what was said there. Anyways, I stand for complete retention of this article. Improvements possible, but that is no ground for deletion. Thanks. --SDas (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that you deleted a major section. Why? I thought it was quite relevant. SDas (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(See new section below)

In my haste, I may have given the wrong impression. Non- theists are more likely to have objected to deletions/ editing etc or the watering down of the article, rather than the overall flavour. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That is what I thought. Theists obviously would like to see this article - which they obviously hate - to be deleted. --SDas (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thou shalt not make assumptions about the personal orientations of other contributors! Okay, seriously here. The article is of concern because it tends to support a social-political agenda and does not yet present a balanced view. There is a longer historical perspective on intellect and various human attributes such as race, educational attainment, earning power etc. This topic so far leaves out the history and cites info from a particular subset of info. The issues of measurement are also missing, e.g., what does IQ actually index, and what is religiosity as distinct for instance from spirituality. I wonder if a request for an expert on the field might help - if the article is to stay it need to be of the quality that the banners can be removed. I am trying to recall the references and material when this was dealt with a number of years ago in a class I took. Fremte (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not making assumptions about anything, and I am sorry it came out that way. I did not make any attempt to implicate any one person's views, just a statistical observation. There is nothing in this particular article that stands out from other articles which do not make it into the A+ category, and I wonder why this one is receives so many requests for deletion. It makes no sense. However, it is nonsense to claim that religion is personal orientation. I could lose my head for my personal (dis)beliefs in some countries, and in my present one I am discriminated.

As far as I am concerned, this a balanced article. As before, if you actually know anything that it misses, please put it in. missing out on history etc. etc. does not make an article a candidate for deletion. It makes it a candidate for further expansion. --SDas (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It astounds me that this page appears here at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be fact based and this subject is inherently insult based. Jewels Vern (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Extra (more nuanced(?)) Source

Hey there, I found this link to be a very useful supplement to this info I got on this Wikipedia page, and thought perhaps you'd like to include it as an external source http://www.skepticink.com/gps/2013/03/10/intelligence-religion-part-4-religious-beliefs-level-of-intelligence/. The research appears solid from my cursory checks. I'll leave that to your discretion--just thought it might be helpful to others curious on the topic. Best, PDXer 3/29/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.70.170 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)