::The following is an attempt to dissect and respond to an article from yahoo news. It's not really my attempt to present my belief (although I'm sure I will add that in), but an attempt to look at evidence presented by the article. I believe we should always seek the truth about what we believe or think we understand. You might say I am trying to live by the questions: "What do I believe, why do I believe it to be true, and how did I come to that belief?" My comments and text will precede with double colons (::) and the font you are currently reading.
Religious people are less intelligent than atheists, study finds
Intelligent people are more likely to be married, and more likely to be successful in life - and this may mean they “need” religion less
Rob Waugh August 12, 2013Yahoo! NewsReligious people are less intelligent than non-believers, according to a new review of 63 scientific studies stretching back over decades.
::I was going to start with the title or the sub-heading, but this seems like a good place to start. I think the very first thing to take care of when communicating with anyone is making sure everyone understands the definitions of words that are being used. I could easily interpret certain words because of my own perception, experience, and knowledge (or any lack thereof); but, when words are clearly defined and understood by those in communication, information can be honestly discussed and either accepted or rejected. This, hopefully being understood, I would want to ask the author and the reader what the terms "religious", "intelligent", "believer", and "religion" means. If we are going to rely on Merriam-Webster, then the following might apply:
::religious: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances (M-W online definition #2 religious)
::intelligent: (I'm actually torn between a couple of definitions here) revealing or reflecting good judgment or sound thought (M-W online definition #1b intelligent)
::intelligence: the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations (M-W online definition #1a intelligence)
::believer: [one who] to accept[s] something as true (M-W online definition #1b believer)
::religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices (M-W online definition #2 religion)
::Granted, there are a number of definitions for each of these words, so we may have to ask the author and all parties involved in submitting information: "What definition are you using when applying these terms?"
::If the contributors are using any of the preceding definitions, then the opening statement sets the pace for the rest of the article and information presented as assuming and vague. Of course, my first reaction is to say, "you mean to tell me that these studies ignored the rest of society and didn't look for an equally "intelligent" person who holds a belief in something more than "self reliance"", but I digress.
A team led by Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies. Even in extreme old age, intelligent people are less likely to believe, the researchers found - and the reasons why people with high IQs shun religion may not be as simple as previously thought.
::Again, I have to understand the definition of intelligence and religiosity; however, do 63 studies compare to the number of "intelligent" and "religious"/"believers" there are in the world?
::If I am to take what I think is the perspective of the contributors to this article, would I be wrong in also stating "scientifically, extreme old age also has a higher probability rate of dementia and Alzheimer's? Also, does having a high IQ always equate to the ability to reason?
Previous studies have tended to assume that intelligent people simply “know better”, the researchers write - but the reasons may be more complex. For instance, intelligent people are more likely to be married, and more likely to be successful in life - and this may mean they “need” religion less.
The studies used in Zuckerman's paper included a life-long analysis of the beliefs of a group of 1,500 gifted children - those with IQs over 135 - in a study which began in 1921 and continues today.
::believer: [one who] to accept[s] something as true (M-W online definition #1b believer)
::religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices (M-W online definition #2 religion)
::Granted, there are a number of definitions for each of these words, so we may have to ask the author and all parties involved in submitting information: "What definition are you using when applying these terms?"
::If the contributors are using any of the preceding definitions, then the opening statement sets the pace for the rest of the article and information presented as assuming and vague. Of course, my first reaction is to say, "you mean to tell me that these studies ignored the rest of society and didn't look for an equally "intelligent" person who holds a belief in something more than "self reliance"", but I digress.
A team led by Miron Zuckerman of the University of Rochester found “a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity” in 53 out of 63 studies. Even in extreme old age, intelligent people are less likely to believe, the researchers found - and the reasons why people with high IQs shun religion may not be as simple as previously thought.
::Again, I have to understand the definition of intelligence and religiosity; however, do 63 studies compare to the number of "intelligent" and "religious"/"believers" there are in the world?
::If I am to take what I think is the perspective of the contributors to this article, would I be wrong in also stating "scientifically, extreme old age also has a higher probability rate of dementia and Alzheimer's? Also, does having a high IQ always equate to the ability to reason?
Previous studies have tended to assume that intelligent people simply “know better”, the researchers write - but the reasons may be more complex. For instance, intelligent people are more likely to be married, and more likely to be successful in life - and this may mean they “need” religion less.
The studies used in Zuckerman's paper included a life-long analysis of the beliefs of a group of 1,500 gifted children - those with IQs over 135 - in a study which began in 1921 and continues today.
::So, wait a second. Is it 63 studies or 1500 studies?
Even at 75 to 91 years of age, the children from Lewis Terman’s study scored lower for religiosity than the general population - contrary to the widely held belief that people turn to God as they age. The researchers noted that data was lacking about religious attitudes in old age and say, “Additional research is needed to resolve this issue.”
::I commend the researchers for admitting the need for additional research!
As early as 1958, Michael Argyle concluded, “Although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs, and rather less likely to have pro-religious attitudes.”
A 1916 study quoted in Zuckerman’s paper (Leuba) found that, “58% of randomly selected scientists in the United States expressed disbelief in, or doubt regarding the existence of God; this proportion rose to nearly 70% for the most eminent scientists.”
The paper, published in the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Review, said “Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme—the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who “know better.”
::I would be curious if the doubt of the subjects and scientists is brought upon by self examination or, in contrast, outside influence (peers and leaders). Perhaps the subjects thought of themselves as having higher intelligence than their peers or leaders and when no one had a reasonable answer to their doubt, they felt their doubt was the final or "top" conclusion.
The paper, published in the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Review, said “Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme—the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who “know better.”
::I would be curious if the doubt of the subjects and scientists is brought upon by self examination or, in contrast, outside influence (peers and leaders). Perhaps the subjects thought of themselves as having higher intelligence than their peers or leaders and when no one had a reasonable answer to their doubt, they felt their doubt was the final or "top" conclusion.
The answer may, however, be more complex. Intelligent people may simply be able to provide themselves with the psychological benefits offered by religion - such as “self-regulation and self-enhancement,” because they are more likely to be successful, and have stable lives.
::I think this statement lacks intelligence (revealing or reflecting good judgment or sound thought) because it seems to ignore those that do not display "self-regulation and self-enhancement". To prove this, ask an angry drunk in the middle of a rage if he "needs" religion.
“Intelligent people typically spend more time in school—a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits,” the researchers write. “More intelligent people get higher level jobs (and better employment (and higher salary) may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs.”
::I would like to see the evidence of "higher level jobs, better employment, higher salary" leading into "personal control beliefs". Is it control to spend more time working and earning better employment (striving for more) if and when your marriage, family, or personal life is in turmoil? I wonder how many "successful intelligent corporate professionals" constantly read improvement books to gain that extra edge in their profession? Also, how many of these "intelligent professionals" are actually satisfied in their profession?
“Last, more intelligent people are more likely to get and stay married (greater attachment), though for intelligent people, that too comes later in life. We therefore suggest that as intelligent people move from young adulthood to adulthood and then to middle age, the benefits of intelligence may continue to accrue.”
::Looking at the marriage/divorce rate from 2010 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm) there are (generously rounded) 7 marriages and 4 divorces for every 1000 people. I may not be looking at this intelligently, but, I think that means the divorce rate is more than 50 percent. I didn't investigate further as to whether the "marriages" were actual agreed upon legal marriages or common law marriages. Also, are intelligent people simply living with each other (not committing to the relationship by not getting actually married) and keeping an apartment open for themselves as an easy way out of the relationship until they decide they have been with a certain person for a long enough time to be able to trust or "settle for" this person?
The researchers suggest that further research on the “function” of religion may reveal more.
::I think I need a reminder of what the definition the article is using when stating "religion".
“People possessing the functions that religion provides are likely to adopt atheism, people lacking these very functions (e.g., the poor, the helpless) are likely to adopt theism,” the researchers wrote.
::Is the article suggesting that intelligent people do not need help from others when they come into drastic situations; or is it suggesting that they do not come into drastic situations at all?
::Closing statement(s): I enjoyed this article, as it sparked my desire to reason, question, investigate, and apply inquisitive techniques. I do not hold my own opinions or observations to be conclusive, especially when I know they may and can contain error and need correcting or when conclusive evidence is presented to dispute my claims. Finally, Happy Birthday, son, I love you!
No comments:
Post a Comment