Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Liberals and atheists are smarter according to a recent study

0 views
Skip to first unread message

John Manning

unread,
Feb 28, 2010, 6:02:33 PM2/28/10
to

The study found that young adults who
said they were "very conservative" had
an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
those who said they were "very liberal"
averaged 106.

Young adults who identify themselves
as "not at all religious" have an
average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
while those who identify themselves
as "very religious" have an average
IQ of 97 during adolescence.


ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) � More intelligent people are statistically
significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and
political preferences that are novel to the human species in
evolutionary history.

Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women),
preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a
new study finds.

The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed
scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to
explain why people form particular preferences and values.

The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than
less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and
values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values
that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of
years."

"Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are
not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not
possess. In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of
years are "evolutionarily familiar."

"General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our
ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for
which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an
evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and
Political Science. "As a result, more intelligent people are more
likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations
than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations
are preferences, values, and lifestyles."

An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals
were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less
intelligent individuals. Because our ancestors lacked artificial light,
they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after
dusk. Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.

In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily
designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and
friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of
genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is
evolutionarily novel. So more intelligent children may be more likely
to grow up to be liberals.

Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add
Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis. Young adults who subjectively
identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during
adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative"
have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive
agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at
work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily
designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are
paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served
humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and
clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more
intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their
natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an
average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify
themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.

In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary
history. Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually
exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were. In
sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage,
women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So
being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for
women.

And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to
value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general
intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual
exclusivity. Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these
sex-specific predictions as well.

One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that
more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such
evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm


Davej

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 1:11:00 AM3/1/10
to
On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> The study found that young adults who
> said they were "very conservative" had
> an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> those who said they were "very liberal"
> averaged 106

Rubbish. Not statistically significant or well researched says PZ
Myers.

mg

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:08:31 AM3/1/10
to

cite?

Xan Du

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 3:45:55 AM3/1/10
to

John Manning

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 10:09:00 AM3/1/10
to


The research described in Science Daily passed peer-review:

"The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed

scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory..."

PZ Meyers has more credible credentials than the above???

---Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers (born March 9, 1957) is an American biology
professor at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM) and the author of
the science blog Pharyngula. He is currently an associate professor of
biology at UMM,[1] works with zebrafish in the field of evolutionary
developmental biology (evo-devo), and also cultivates an interest in
cephalopods. He is a public critic of intelligent design (ID) and of the
creationist movement in general and is an activist in the American
creation-evolution controversy.===

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


duane

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 10:44:05 AM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 3:45 am, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2:08 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 11:11 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > The study found that young adults who
> > > > said they were "very conservative" had
> > > > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > > > those who said they were "very liberal"
> > > > averaged 106
>
> > > Rubbish. Not statistically significant or well researched says PZ
> > > Myers.
>
> > cite?
>
> http://www.democraticuhttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop...
>
> -Xan

II points difference on a test where 15 points is one standard
deviation. Probably significant.

Michael

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 11:40:51 AM3/1/10
to
On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> The study found that young adults who
> said they were "very conservative" had
> an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> those who said they were "very liberal"
> averaged 106.
>
> Young adults who identify themselves
> as "not at all religious" have an
> average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
> while those who identify themselves
> as "very religious" have an average
> IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>
> ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) More intelligent people are statistically

> significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and
> political preferences that are novel to the human species in
> evolutionary history.
>
> Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women),
> preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a
> new study finds.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html

LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or
Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women.
For graduate education the pattern was similar--a higher percentage of
LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate
education.
LDS women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations
than Catholic or Protestant women. Twenty-three percent of LDS women
are employed in professional occupations, which is similar to Jewish
women and women with no religious affiliation.

A recent national Advanced Placement study found Utah ranked first in
the nation in both [AP] exams taken and exams passed on a per capita
basis. In 1997, more than one-fourth of Utah's high school graduates
earned twelve or more hours of college credits while still in high
school through the Advanced Placement Program

Utah has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the nation
(ranked third in 1990-92, with 93.9%

Utah is ranked 2nd in proportion of the population who are high school
graduates. 85.1% of Utah's adult population are high school graduates

last_per...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 12:00:06 PM3/1/10
to
On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> The study found that young adults who
> said they were "very conservative" had
> an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> those who said they were "very liberal"
> averaged 106.
>
> Young adults who identify themselves
> as "not at all religious" have an
> average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
> while those who identify themselves
> as "very religious" have an average
> IQ of 97 during adolescence.

So, both groups are dim-witted, and likely amongst those
willing to swallow the bullshit "study," though it does
--unintentionally--suggest that negroes are not intelligent

Ike E 2/23/2010

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 12:08:49 PM3/1/10
to

"Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e470c41-5b6d-47b4...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html

> LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or
> Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women.
> For graduate education the pattern was similar--a higher percentage of
> LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate
> education.

> LDS women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations
> than Catholic or Protestant women. Twenty-three percent of LDS women
> are employed in professional occupations, which is similar to Jewish
> women and women with no religious affiliation.

But they're going to hell for participating in yet another legalistic,
non-apostolic "I am Israel" cult which has no connection whatsoever to Jesus
and His churches, so what's the advantage?

Ike


Michael

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 12:10:03 PM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 12:08 pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

To which group are you refering?

Geode

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 12:25:18 PM3/1/10
to

I have not reasons to doubt this. Most of all, the education of a
child is related to the way that parents interact with his children.
And the quality of this interaction is not related directly to
religion. Many lower class people, teach their children to be
disobedient to a certain degree. There are ways to teach children to
be obedient without the use of punishments, rebukes, speeches or
slapping. If a couple of parents is very sensitive to the resistance
of child to obey in a precise moment, one of their parents would have
a reaction of repeating the order. It is probably that the boy would
obey this second time, then the parent understand the child needs a
repetition of the order.

The case can be different of what it looks. The human voice,
specially, the voice of a mother or a father, works as a
"reinforcer". In that case, the parent is reinforcing the delay of
the child to obey, for both had been contingent. Then, because of
this reinforcement, the child would present a new delay soon after the
next order is presented. This time, the parent is going to repeat his
order, and sometimes give the child a short homily about that a boy
has to be obedient. So this repetitions of orders, these homilies, are
working slowly towards making the child more prone to resist orders,
because they are usually "reinforced" with parental voices.

In the case a parent is not very sensible to the delay of an order, he
would think he is not praising enough his son for being obedient. So,
he waits patiently till the boy executes the order. Then, he praises
him for being a very good boy. If this type of control is maintained
in a systematic way, the boy learn to obey their parents with a high
degree of predictability. With this behavioral instrumentation, the
child would never present any challenge to his parent's authority.

There is a lot more, we can talk about this. But theres is not any
need to couple the bad behavior of kids with religion or atheism, but
on statistical grounds. Even so, the correlation is independent of
the dogma of their parents, or their lack of any dogmas.

Geode

Michael

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 12:37:37 PM3/1/10
to

Your overly verbose and irrelevant tripe, detracts from the point.
You can't lump the latter day saints in with apostate chrisianity
groups
in your arguments.

We are not apostate christianty, we are the LORDs church restored
once
again in preparation for his triumphal return to Earth in glory.

Geode

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 12:45:30 PM3/1/10
to

To be intelligent of not is a different question. It can not be proved
intelligence has a genetic component. In any case, intelligence of a
person only defines the quality of his behavior. Defining quality as
how much useful it is this behavior to earn his life in a civilized
way.

So, to have a useful behavior the person have to train properly, in
the same way a tennis player or a footballer trains, or a pianist
trains, to perform a little better everyday. So, to achieve
intelligence, the student has to train in school to have a growing
mastery of the school program. So, all the kids that had by a common
accident learn to resist the authority of parents, would also resist
the recommendations to study hard and have a good behavior.

The boy believe hat should have a good behavior, but he could not
avoid to misbehave and be naughty. Why? Because, dutifully, he had
learned to disobey first, and a little later, this disobedience
becomes a rejection or at least some degree of loathing to obey
orders.

So, if parents were "reinforcing" with praises the good behavior of
their kids, they would be excellent. If parents reinforce their kids
being studious, and hard worker, they would be that in a permanent
way.

Geode

last_per...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 1:03:32 PM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 12:45 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 mar, 17:00, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > The study found that young adults who
> > > said they were "very conservative" had
> > > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > > those who said they were "very liberal"
> > > averaged 106.
>
> > > Young adults who identify themselves
> > > as "not at all religious" have an
> > > average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
> > > while those who identify themselves
> > > as "very religious" have an average
> > > IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>
> > So, both groups are dim-witted, and likely amongst those
> > willing to swallow the bullshit "study," though it does
> > --unintentionally--suggest that negroes are not intelligent
>
> To be intelligent of not is a different question. It can not be proved
> intelligence has a genetic component.

Sure it can, and countless studies have illustrated intrinsic
intelligence
variations with race. It is getting harder to find mainstream sources
willing
to touch on it, considering it is politically taboo and frowned upon.
Politics makes poor science. The observational evidence is
overwhelming
that blacks in general are substantially lower on the dendrite food
chain than
most other groups.

> In any case, intelligence of a
> person only defines the quality of his behavior.

High intelligence often accompanies good behavior, but behavior itself
has little to do with it. There are many well-behaved people who are
quite stupid. Intelligence is generally equated with a person's
ability
to adapt to new situations, process info for future survival and
success,
independent thought, reasoning and problem solving, etc.

Ike E 2/23/2010

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:33:25 PM3/1/10
to

"Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:174ce135-7825-43ef...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

The Morons, er, Mormons.

Ike


Ike E 2/23/2010

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:34:49 PM3/1/10
to

"Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:07f7206e-5f9d-4bf7...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

[snip]


> Your overly verbose and irrelevant tripe, detracts from the point.
> You can't lump the latter day saints in with apostate chrisianity
> groups in your arguments.

The hell he can't--it's one of the most ridiculous apostate groups out
there.

> We are not apostate christianty, we are the LORDs church restored
> once again in preparation for his triumphal return to Earth in glory.

LOL

Ike


Slim

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:35:36 PM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 2:34 pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:07f7206e-5f9d-4bf7...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Your overly verbose and irrelevant tripe, detracts from the point.
> > You can't lump the latter day saints in with apostate chrisianity
> > groups in your arguments.
>
> The hell he can't--it's one of the most ridiculous apostate groups out
> there.

Which one?

Slim

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:36:53 PM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 2:33 pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:174ce135-7825-43ef...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 12:08 pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:8e470c41-5b6d-47b4...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html
> >>> LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or
> >>> Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women.
> >>> For graduate education the pattern was similar--a higher percentage of
> >>> LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate
> >>> education.
> >>> LDS women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations
> >>> than Catholic or Protestant women. Twenty-three percent of LDS women
> >>> are employed in professional occupations, which is similar to Jewish
> >>> women and women with no religious affiliation.
>
> >> But they're going to hell for participating in yet another legalistic,
> >> non-apostolic "I am Israel" cult which has no connection whatsoever to
> >> Jesus
> >> and His churches, so what's the advantage?
>
> >> Ike
> > To which group are you refering?
>
> The Morons, er, Mormons.

LOL.
It is the only one that has a connection to jesus, idiot!

Ike E 2/23/2010

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:40:13 PM3/1/10
to

"Slim" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3334337b-4e10-4432...@f35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> Which one?

The Morons, aka the Mormons.

It's just another "I am Israel" cult claiming to be "true Christianity" when
it is neither "Israel" or "Christianity."

Same as the Branch Dividians, or the so-called "Worldwide Church of God," or
British Israelism, etc, etc.

It's the same tap dance that ALL the non-historical parachurch cults do.

Ike


Slim

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:42:22 PM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 2:40 pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Slim" <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:3334337b-4e10-4432...@f35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 1, 2:34 pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:07f7206e-5f9d-4bf7...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>> Your overly verbose and irrelevant tripe, detracts from the point.
> >>> You can't lump the latter day saints in with apostate chrisianity
> >>> groups in your arguments.
>
> >> The hell he can't--it's one of the most ridiculous apostate groups out
> >> there.
> > Which one?
>
> The Morons, aka the Mormons.
>
> It's just another "I am Israel" cult claiming to be "true Christianity"

Which it is.

No other church comes even close to even remotely resembling the LORDs
church as
revealed in the new testament.

Ours is a precise match.

Bert Hyman

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:50:23 PM3/1/10
to
In news:CI-dnVsrT56XaxfW...@giganews.com John Manning
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:

> More intelligent people are statistically significantly more likely to
> exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are
> novel to the human species in evolutionary history.
>

Are these people honestly claiming that being "very religious" is NOT
"novel to the human species?"

By the way: The effect, if it's actually real, would only work in one
direction; simply claiming to be liberal or an atheist won't make you
any smarter, so no help for you there.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com

Jack

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:52:48 PM3/1/10
to
> To which group are you refering?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's okay to write "to" at the end of a sentence, no one could think
less of you for it.

Jack

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:53:49 PM3/1/10
to

Aren't all the suggestions of a study supposedly "unintentional?"

Jack

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:56:01 PM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 12:45 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 mar, 17:00, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > The study found that young adults who
> > > said they were "very conservative" had
> > > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > > those who said they were "very liberal"
> > > averaged 106.
>
> > > Young adults who identify themselves
> > > as "not at all religious" have an
> > > average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
> > > while those who identify themselves
> > > as "very religious" have an average
> > > IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>
> > So, both groups are dim-witted, and likely amongst those
> > willing to swallow the bullshit "study," though it does
> > --unintentionally--suggest that negroes are not intelligent
>
> To be intelligent of not is a different question. It can not be proved
> intelligence has a genetic component.

Maybe it never has been proved. But you can't possibly know that "it
can never be proved."


>  In any case, intelligence of a
> person only defines the quality of his behavior. Defining quality as
> how much useful it is this behavior to earn his life in a civilized
> way.
>
> So, to have a useful behavior the person have to train properly, in
> the same way a tennis player or a footballer trains, or a pianist
> trains, to perform a little better everyday. So, to achieve
> intelligence, the student has to train in school to have a growing
> mastery of the school program. So, all the kids that had by a common
> accident learn to resist the authority of parents, would also resist
> the recommendations to study hard and have a good behavior.
>
> The boy believe hat should have a good behavior, but he could not
> avoid to misbehave and be naughty.  Why?  Because, dutifully, he had
> learned to disobey first, and a little later, this disobedience
> becomes a rejection or at least some degree of loathing to obey
> orders.
>
> So, if parents were "reinforcing" with praises the good behavior of
> their kids, they would be excellent. If parents reinforce their kids
> being studious, and hard worker, they would be that in a permanent
> way.
>

> Geode- Hide quoted text -


>
> - Show quoted text -

What a load.

Jack

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 2:57:32 PM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 1:03 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:45 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 mar, 17:00, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > The study found that young adults who
> > > > said they were "very conservative" had
> > > > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > > > those who said they were "very liberal"
> > > > averaged 106.
>
> > > > Young adults who identify themselves
> > > > as "not at all religious" have an
> > > > average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
> > > > while those who identify themselves
> > > > as "very religious" have an average
> > > > IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>
> > > So, both groups are dim-witted, and likely amongst those
> > > willing to swallow the bullshit "study," though it does
> > > --unintentionally--suggest that negroes are not intelligent
>
> > To be intelligent of not is a different question. It can not be proved
> > intelligence has a genetic component.
>
> Sure it can, and countless studies have illustrated intrinsic
> intelligence

Whatever "intrinsic intelligence" is.

> variations with race.  It is getting harder to find mainstream sources
> willing
> to touch on it, considering it is politically taboo and frowned upon.
> Politics makes poor science.   The observational evidence is
> overwhelming
> that blacks in general are substantially lower on the dendrite food
> chain than
> most other groups.
>
> > In any case, intelligence of a
> > person only defines the quality of his behavior.
>
> High intelligence often accompanies good behavior, but behavior itself
> has little to do with it.  There are many well-behaved people who are
> quite stupid.   Intelligence is generally equated with a person's
> ability
> to adapt to new situations, process info for future survival and
> success,

> independent thought, reasoning and problem solving, etc.- Hide quoted text -

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 3:32:42 PM3/1/10
to
> less of you for it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

It was sophisticated, you oaf.

last_per...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 3:55:53 PM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 2:57 pm, Jack <furgfurgj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 1:03 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 12:45 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 1 mar, 17:00, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > > The study found that young adults who
> > > > > said they were "very conservative" had
> > > > > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > > > > those who said they were "very liberal"
> > > > > averaged 106.
>
> > > > > Young adults who identify themselves
> > > > > as "not at all religious" have an
> > > > > average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
> > > > > while those who identify themselves
> > > > > as "very religious" have an average
> > > > > IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>
> > > > So, both groups are dim-witted, and likely amongst those
> > > > willing to swallow the bullshit "study," though it does
> > > > --unintentionally--suggest that negroes are not intelligent
>
> > > To be intelligent of not is a different question. It can not be proved
> > > intelligence has a genetic component.
>
> > Sure it can, and countless studies have illustrated intrinsic
> > intelligence
>
> Whatever "intrinsic intelligence" is.

It would be roughly based on number of neural connections inherent in
a person's brain. Evidence so far suggests you may be a little short.

last_per...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 3:58:18 PM3/1/10
to

With real, unbiased and legitimate studies, yes.
With politically motivated horseshit pretending to be a study,
as this is, the "unintentional" part stands.

haiku jones

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 4:01:52 PM3/1/10
to

So, who made popcorn?


Haiku Jones

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 4:13:54 PM3/1/10
to
> Haiku Jones- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=24

Isa 24:2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest;

Isa 24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof;
because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken
the everlasting covenant.

Isa 24:6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that
dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are
burned, and few men left.

Isa 24:21 ¶ And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the LORD
shall punish the host of the high ones [that are] on high, and the
kings of the earth upon the earth.

Isa 24:23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed,
when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem,
and before his ancients gloriously.

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 4:26:40 PM3/1/10
to
On Feb 28, 3:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> The study found that young adults who
> said they were "very conservative" had
> an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> those who said they were "very liberal"
> averaged 106.
>
> Young adults who identify themselves
> as "not at all religious" have an
> average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
> while those who identify themselves
> as "very religious" have an average
> IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>
> ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) More intelligent people are statistically

> significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and
> political preferences that are novel to the human species in
> evolutionary history.
>
> Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women),
> preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a
> new study finds.
>
> The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed
> scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to
> explain why people form particular preferences and values.
>
> The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than
> less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and
> values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values
> that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of
> years."
>
> "Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are
> not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not
> possess.  In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of
> years are "evolutionarily familiar."
>
> "General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our
> ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for
> which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an
> evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and
> Political Science.  "As a result, more intelligent people are more
> likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations
> than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations
> are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
>
> An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals
> were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less
> intelligent individuals.  Because our ancestors lacked artificial light,
> they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after
> dusk.  Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.
>
> In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily
> designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and
> friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of
> genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is
> evolutionarily novel.  So more intelligent children may be more likely
> to grow up to be liberals.
>
> Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add
> Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis.  Young adults who subjectively
> identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during
> adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative"
> have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
>
> Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive
> agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at
> work behind otherwise natural phenomena.  "Humans are evolutionarily
> designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are
> paranoid," says Kanazawa.  This innate bias toward paranoia served
> humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and
> clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers.  "So, more
> intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their
> natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

>
> Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an
> average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify
> themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>
> In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary
> history.  Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually
> exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were.  In
> sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage,
> women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate.  So
> being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for
> women.
>
> And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to
> value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general
> intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual
> exclusivity.  Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these
> sex-specific predictions as well.
>
> One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that
> more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such
> evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

Even better, the vast majority of scientists that are members of the
National Academy of Sciences are atheists:

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism

N'other interesting link:

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

Of course, you could have guessed that. How stupid is it to believe
in Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? About as
stupid as believing in Jesus Christ, Ala, or Jehovah.

Geode

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 4:58:49 PM3/1/10
to

All this you are mentioning, reasoning, thinking, problem solving,
process information, etc. are nothing more than behavior. Is a sort of
inner behavior, invisible to an external observer. Only if your mind
were fused with his, you would see what his mind is really doing. When
you see someone reading, you know that his mind is producing images
and sounds and ideas, that are invoked by the written words.

Even the most outstanding and extraordinary intelligence is nothing
more than behavior. Internal behavior. You only are aware of this,
when you read a document in which the person has written the product
of his thinking.

So, behavior is an abstract word and most of them are polysemic.
geode

Geode

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 5:05:20 PM3/1/10
to

save your crap for another occasion, man.
i was not defending, not comparing LDS Christians with the rest of the
pack.
I am an atheist, and do not care what sort of shit do you believe.

I was simple saying, that to raise a child properly has not a forced
link with the scriptures of any religion. Even, those that do not
adhere to any church doctrine can do it very wrongly.
.
Geode
.

Geode

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 5:29:28 PM3/1/10
to

Intelligence is an abstraction. You never had seen any clear
definition of the term. If we have trouble to define a concept, more
trouble we would have to prove it is genetic. It would be much easier
to know what the fuck it is, previously.

So, as far as I could think about, the concept intelligence is nothing
but a qualifier for a behavior. Depending on the context, we can be
talking of theoretical physical scientist, a football player, a
pianist, a politician, a hunter gatherer of the Kalahari, or an Inuit
that hunts seals or whales. All can be intelligent but you could not
compared them in a meaningful way. You can not tell an hunter
gatherer is more or less intelligent than surgeon, or vice-versa. A
cosmologist has not the slightness idea on how to survive in the
Kalahari a few days, unless he had come fully equipped with guns, food
and water from the civilized world.
Each one has his on brand of intelligence. And they are not
interchangeable.
Same comparison can be made between a pianist and a tennis player.
Each one needs a degree of intelligence to perform properly. But both
types of intelligence are not equivalent, not comparable.

Let us consider two scientists. Both had made a doctorate in
theoretical physics. But one is a genius and the other not. But, in
the case of the genius scientist most of his colleagues could be
unable to see he is a genius. They only see he is saying weird
things. It comes to other scientist of the highest class to accept he
is a genius, and he has added something relevant to the present state
of science. Most common scientists are unable to see this, unless some
people with a great international prestige had recognized him as a
relevant physicist.

Geode

Steve Hayes

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 7:06:40 PM3/1/10
to
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:02:33 -0300, John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br>
wrote:

>The study found that young adults who
>said they were "very conservative" had
>an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
>those who said they were "very liberal"
>averaged 106.
>
>Young adults who identify themselves
>as "not at all religious" have an
>average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
>while those who identify themselves
>as "very religious" have an average
>IQ of 97 during adolescence.

So what about those who Identified themselves as very liberal and very
religious, or very conservative and not at all religious?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Brian E. Clark

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 7:15:03 PM3/1/10
to
In article <22162167-57d5-47ef-8cb5-c5fde2d19535
@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, yos...@hotmail.com says...

> > It's just another "I am Israel" cult claiming to be "true Christianity"
>
> Which it is.

So are all the others, in the eyes of their supporters.



> No other church comes even close to even remotely resembling the LORDs
> church as
> revealed in the new testament.

That's what they all say. Literally.

> Ours is a precise match.

According to your interpretations, your interpretations are
correct. That's not particularly convincing, you know.

--
-----------
Brian E. Clark

last_per...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 7:26:30 PM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 4:26 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Even better, the vast majority of scientists that are members of the
> National Academy of Sciences are atheists:

Some are, some aren't. Who cares? Religion goes far beyond science.

And silly lemmings like you don't understand that a scientist with a
very promising professional future knows full well it is wise to omit
or conceal any religious leanings he may have, even if he is able
to keep the two separate, as most do. I used to work with an
internationally known astrophysicist who would never in a million
years let his Christian beliefs interfere with his professional work,
and rightly so. You probably are also ignorant of the fact that
some politics is involved in just who gets elected into the N.A. of S.

Xan Du

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 11:13:50 PM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 10:44 am, duane <harry3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 3:45 am,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 2:08 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 11:11 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > > On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > > The study found that young adults who
> > > > > said they were "very conservative" had
> > > > > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > > > > those who said they were "very liberal"
> > > > > averaged 106
>
> > > > Rubbish. Not statistically significant or well researched says PZ
> > > > Myers.
>
> > > cite?
>
> >http://www.democraticuhttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop...
>
> > -Xan
>
> II points difference on a test where 15 points is one standard
> deviation.  Probably significant.

Which would tend to indicate that liberal atheists do better on IQ
tests. But that doesn't necessarily support the other conclusions
made in the study. That's what this liberal atheist is skeptical of.
Hard to know tho', I don't have the $$ right now to justify purchasing
the study to read it for myself. 'Tis unfortunate.

-Xan

mg

unread,
Mar 1, 2010, 11:38:30 PM3/1/10
to
On Mar 1, 1:45 am, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2:08 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 11:11 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > The study found that young adults who
> > > > said they were "very conservative" had
> > > > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > > > those who said they were "very liberal"
> > > > averaged 106
>
> > > Rubbish. Not statistically significant or well researched says PZ
> > > Myers.
>
> > cite?
>
> http://www.democraticuhttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop...
>
> -Xan

That URL doesn't work for me. Is there supposed to be two http's in a
web address? Anyway, I was able to find an article by PZ Myers on the
subject. It's at:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_yourselves_on_the.php

In reading that article, it looks to me like PZ Myers is an IQ test
denier who has written an article in a blog. The study he criticizes
was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is possible
that the study has problems, I don't know if it does or not, but I
don't think PZ Myers opinion is worth much.

Here's a quote from PZ's article, by the way, and it certainly doesn't
look very scientific to me:

"Show me the error bars on those measurements. Show me the reliability
of IQ as a measure of actual, you know, intelligence. Show me that a 6
point IQ difference matters at all in your interactions with other
people, even if it were real. And then to claim that these differences
are not only heritable, but evolutionarily significant…jebus, people,
you can just glance at it and see that it is complete crap."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_yourselves_on_the.php

Ike E 2/23/2010

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 1:55:23 AM3/2/10
to

"Slim" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8adf6f47-26b1-4766...@j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

Ah, the foolishness.

Jesus uses the seven archetypal churches in Revelation to lay out the church
age, each with their varying degrees of success and failure (except for
Philadelphia, which NO Gentile church can be, since that letter is written
to the LITERAL Israelite-Christian Remnant yet to come, which is NOT "you").

Hence, the minute anyone says "we're the ONLY church" and "we're the ONLY
ones who have everything right," a GUARANTEE YOU that they are NOT a church
AT ALL, and they pretty much have NOTHING right.

But such is the nature of the cultic leaches...

Ike


Ike E 2/23/2010

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 1:58:14 AM3/2/10
to

"Slim" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:22162167-57d5-47ef...@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 1, 2:40 pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> "Slim" <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> news:3334337b-4e10-4432...@f35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> On Mar 1, 2:34 pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>>>news:07f7206e-5f9d-4bf7...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> [snip]
>
>>>>> Your overly verbose and irrelevant tripe, detracts from the point.
>>>>> You can't lump the latter day saints in with apostate chrisianity
>>>>> groups in your arguments.
>
>>>> The hell he can't--it's one of the most ridiculous apostate groups out
>>>> there.
>>> Which one?
>
>> The Morons, aka the Mormons.
>
>> It's just another "I am Israel" cult claiming to be "true Christianity"

> Which it is.

LOL

Not even close.

> No other church comes even close to even remotely resembling the LORDs
> church as revealed in the new testament.

LOL

Not even close.

Here's the funny part: Jesus rated the first century church [Ephesus] as
mediocre. The NEXT age--the church enduring persecution, i.e. "Smyrna"--was
MUCH better: He only had to give them a conditional warning.

> Ours is a precise match.

LOL

Yours is a precise OPPOSITE.

Ike


Xan Du

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 4:20:03 AM3/2/10
to
On Mar 1, 11:38 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 1, 1:45 am,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 2:08 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 11:11 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > > The study found that young adults who
> > > > > said they were "very conservative" had
> > > > > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > > > > those who said they were "very liberal"
> > > > > averaged 106
>
> > > > Rubbish. Not statistically significant or well researched says PZ
> > > > Myers.
>
> > > cite?
>
> >http://www.democraticuhttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop...
>
> > -Xan
>
> That URL doesn't work for me. Is there supposed to be two http's in a
> web address? Anyway, I was able to find an article by PZ Myers on the
> subject. It's at:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_yourselves_on...

>
> In reading that article, it looks to me like PZ Myers is an IQ test
> denier who has written an article in a blog. The study he criticizes
> was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is possible
> that the study has problems, I don't know if it does or not, but I
> don't think PZ Myers opinion is worth much.
>
> Here's a quote from PZ's article, by the way, and it certainly doesn't
> look very scientific to me:
>
> "Show me the error bars on those measurements. Show me the reliability
> of IQ as a measure of actual, you know, intelligence. Show me that a 6
> point IQ difference matters at all in your interactions with other
> people, even if it were real. And then to claim that these differences
> are not only heritable, but evolutionarily significant…jebus, people,
> you can just glance at it and see that it is complete crap."http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_yourselves_on...

Sorry about the bad link, but you read the same text that I did.

Understand now that I am a left-leaning atheist. My knee-jerk
reaction to article was a self-satisfied chuckle, followed by smelling
a rat. Not having access to the study itself (too poor to purchase
it) I'm left to speculate on what I do know from the article and
elsewhere:

1) Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" are highly subjective
to begin with, and the study relied on on self-identification. In
other words, the study subjects were simply asked what their political
alignment was. That's not science, it's a scientifically-conducted
opinion survey.

2) Altruism is very real observed behavior whose evolutionary
mechanism is still somewhat misunderstood and contested, and is
expressed by a number of different behaviors. This study seems to be
limited to only one aspect: "In the current study, Kanazawa argues


that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring
mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about
an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never
meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel."

3) IQ test performance is subject to significant variance that cannot
be attributed to genetic inheritance alone -- childhood nutrition,
social and emotional effects in the family environment, opportunities
for stimulating activities such as art and music training, cultural
biases in the test questions themselves, etc.

4) IQ is a very poor predictor of many aspects in the gamut of human
behavior. It shows positive correlation for income potential for
instance, but specific job performance is actually better predicted by
amount of experience. IQ is silent on other aspects of human social
interaction, so even if this study's results represent fact, the
utility of of this knowledge seems limited.

Overall, this "smells" a little pseudo-sciency -- _The Bell Curve_
anyone? -- but we'll see. I'm still running on first impressions.

-Xan

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 11:42:09 AM3/2/10
to
On Mar 1, 7:15 pm, Brian E. Clark

<brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article <22162167-57d5-47ef-8cb5-c5fde2d19535
> @g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, yost...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > It's just another "I am Israel" cult claiming to be "true Christianity"
>
> > Which it is.
>
> So are all the others, in the eyes of their supporters.
>
> > No other church comes even close to even remotely resembling the LORDs
> > church as
> > revealed in the new testament.
>
> That's what they all say. Literally.
>
> > Ours is a precise match.
>
> According to your interpretations, your interpretations are
> correct.

There are 40 identifying signs of the LORDs church in the new
testament
and early christianity.
Ours has all 40.

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 11:43:34 AM3/2/10
to
On Mar 2, 1:55 am, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Slim" <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Negative, idiot!
Those were addressed to seven actual churches and were for them.
Evangelicals try to misinterpret everything.
Those don't apply to anything other than those seven.
And it shows half of them at some level of apostasy in the late 60s AD.

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 11:44:11 AM3/2/10
to
On Mar 2, 1:58 am, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>

You are living in fantasy land delusion from swilling cough syrup.

Jimbo

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 11:53:09 AM3/2/10
to

There are identifying signs to the city of Detroit. That doesn't
mean I want to go there.

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 12:20:51 PM3/2/10
to
On Mar 1, 4:26 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 4:26 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Even better, the vast majority of scientists that are members of the
> > National Academy of Sciences are atheists:
>
> Some are, some aren't.  

The statement was "most." Your "some are, some aren't comment is
nonsensical as a rejoinder to what I wrote.

> Who cares?  

Rational people that want to make informed, rational decisions.


> Religion goes far beyond science.


So does the Easter Bunny. What's your point?


> And silly lemmings like you don't understand that a scientist with a
> very promising professional future knows full well it is wise to omit
> or conceal any religious leanings he may have, even if he is able
> to keep the two separate, as most do.  

The lemming analogy fits the superstitious, not the scientists.
Science is about skeptical inquiry, which is the opposite of following
the heard. Religion is all about following the the leader.

> I used to work with an
> internationally known astrophysicist who would never in a million
> years let his Christian beliefs interfere with his professional work,
> and rightly so.

Riiiight. And I'm the Easter Bunny.

Better yet, I knew that internationally known astrophysicist and he
say's you're lying through your teeth.

But, seriously, what would you anecdote (even *if* true) have to do
with the statement that most scientists in the National Academy of
Sciences are atheists?

<snip to end>

Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle

sully

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 12:46:48 PM3/2/10
to

snip


>
> Overall, this "smells" a little pseudo-sciency -- _The Bell Curve_
> anyone? -- but we'll see.  I'm still running on first impressions.

Agree. I take most social science type studies with an overdose of
salt. I have friends and family who are fatally stupid reich
wingers, but has nothing to do with their
IQ's which are likely higher than mine.

This folds in with our discussion about post-hoc rationalization. I
think it takes more intelligence to rationalize the book of mormon
than to recognize it for the fraud that it is.

Think of the incredible mental gymnastics employed by apologists to
explain steel swords and submarines! I don't think I'm smart enough.
:^)


Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 1:07:14 PM3/2/10
to

Not sure the study in question falls into that category. I mean, IQ
can be measured objectively. You may not like the way its measured.
You may not like the implications, etc.


> I have friends and family who are fatally stupid reich
> wingers,  but has nothing to do with their
> IQ's which are likely higher than mine.

Anecdotal evidence really has no place in a discussion about average
differences between groups.

>
> This folds in with our discussion about post-hoc rationalization.    I
> think it takes more intelligence to rationalize  the  book of mormon
> than to recognize it for the fraud that it is.

One of the problems with words like "intelligence" is that everyone
seems to have their own opinion.

Personally I don't know *any* really smart Mormons. I know some that
did well in school -- but I don't place a high premium on the ability
to repeat what others tell you (and, yes, I did well in school).

I think of intelligence as the ability to handle data and derive
rational/logical conclusions from it. I'm especially impressed by
folks that can arrive at rational conclusions that without being shown
the formula first. From that POV, Mormons are distinctly stupid (at
least the ones professing the literal truth of the Book of Mormon).

>
> Think of the incredible mental gymnastics employed by apologists to
> explain steel swords and submarines!   I don't think I'm smart enough.
> :^)

Don't sell yourself short. It doesn't take an ounce of intelligence
to write the clap trap that LDS apologists come up with.

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 1:41:17 PM3/2/10
to
> mean I want to go there.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No one is making you go there.

last_per...@yahoo.com

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 3:05:36 PM3/2/10
to
On Mar 2, 12:20 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Mar 1, 4:26 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 4:26 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Even better, the vast majority of scientists that are members of the
> > > National Academy of Sciences are atheists:
>
> > Some are, some aren't.  
>
> The statement was "most."  Your "some are, some aren't comment is
> nonsensical as a rejoinder to what I wrote.
>
> > Who cares?  
>
> Rational people that want to make informed, rational decisions.

Make that silly lemmings who need to think since all those "really
smart"
people are atheist, therefore I will be too!! Typical emotionally
disturbed
atheist retard who has no mind of his own.

> > Religion goes far beyond science.
>
> So does the Easter Bunny.

Elaborate on this some....should be mildly amusing.

> > And silly lemmings like you don't understand that a scientist with a
> > very promising professional future knows full well it is wise to omit
> > or conceal any religious leanings he may have, even if he is able
> > to keep the two separate, as most do.  
>
> The lemming analogy fits the superstitious, not the scientists.

I was referring to you, not any scientist. You have problems
with basic understanding of the written word.

> Science is about skeptical inquiry, which is the opposite of following
> the heard.  Religion is all about following the the leader.
>
> > I used to work with an
> > internationally known astrophysicist who would never in a million
> > years let his Christian beliefs interfere with his professional work,
> > and rightly so.
>
> Riiiight.  And I'm the Easter Bunny.

You seem a bit obsessed with Easter Bunnies, little retard.

> Better yet, I knew that internationally known astrophysicist and he
> say's you're lying through your teeth.

We know, little tard. Though I guess it does make sense that
you'd feel that such a person wouldn't waste time with a dunce
like you, but hey, I've been known to toy around with all kinds
of two-legged fauna, including USENET atheist tards. I find
it fun sometimes.

> But, seriously, what would you anecdote (even *if* true) have to do
> with the statement that most scientists in the National Academy of
> Sciences are atheists?

Re-read what I wrote and try again.

> <snip to end>

> Duwayne Anderson

Duhwayne, never an original thought in his entire tard existence.

Thanks for playing Duhwayne. I always bring out the best of atheist
tardery.

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 3:59:05 PM3/2/10
to
On Mar 2, 12:05 pm, last_permutat...@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip>


> > The statement was "most."  Your "some are, some aren't comment is
> > nonsensical as a rejoinder to what I wrote.
>
> > > Who cares?  
>
> > Rational people that want to make informed, rational decisions.
>
> Make that silly lemmings who need to think since all those "really
> smart"
> people are atheist, therefore I will be too!!  

See, a person with a high IQ wouldn't mistake cause an effect like
that. Don't you feel embarrassed when you put it out there in public
view?

> Typical emotionally
> disturbed
> atheist retard who has no mind of his own.

Guess not.


>
> > > Religion goes far beyond science.
>
> > So does the Easter Bunny.
>
> Elaborate on this some....should be mildly amusing.

Sure. You said your religion goes far beyond science. And I agree.
Furthermore, the Easter Bunny goes far beyond science, too. The
Easter Bunny, like your god, are both mythical creatures of the
imagination and are thus unavailable for scientific examination.

> > > And silly lemmings like you don't understand that a scientist with a
> > > very promising professional future knows full well it is wise to omit
> > > or conceal any religious leanings he may have, even if he is able
> > > to keep the two separate, as most do.  
>
> > The lemming analogy fits the superstitious, not the scientists.
>
> I was referring to you,

Yeah. I know you were. But I turned your insult around and
illustrated that the lemming analogy fits the superstitious, so (it's
sorta funny) you were actually talking about yourself.

> not any scientist.   You have problems
> with basic understanding of the written word.

Says the guy that believes in ghosts.

>
> > Science is about skeptical inquiry, which is the opposite of following
> > the heard.  Religion is all about following the the leader.
>
> > > I used to work with an
> > > internationally known astrophysicist who would never in a million
> > > years let his Christian beliefs interfere with his professional work,
> > > and rightly so.
>
> > Riiiight.  And I'm the Easter Bunny.
>
> You seem a bit obsessed with Easter Bunnies, little retard.

And that, folks, is an illustration of the intellectual prows of this
particular theist.


>
> > Better yet, I knew that internationally known astrophysicist and he
> > say's you're lying through your teeth.
>
> We know, little tard.   Though I guess it does make sense that
> you'd feel that such a person wouldn't waste time with a dunce
> like you, but hey, I've been known to toy around with all kinds
> of two-legged fauna, including USENET atheist tards.  I find
> it fun sometimes.
>
> > But, seriously, what would you anecdote (even *if* true) have to do
> > with the statement that most scientists in the National Academy of
> > Sciences are atheists?
>
> Re-read what I wrote and try again.
>
> > <snip to end>
> > Duwayne Anderson
>
> Duhwayne, never an original thought in his entire tard existence.
>
> Thanks for playing Duhwayne.  I always bring out the best of atheist
> tardery.

Oh, thank you. I mean, John started out with an article showing how
atheists have (on average) higher IQs than theists. But the study
isn't nearly as entertaining as your real-time demonstrations.

Wexford

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 4:45:58 PM3/2/10
to
On Mar 2, 1:07 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:


*********************

> > > Overall, this "smells" a little pseudo-sciency -- _The Bell Curve_
> > > anyone? -- but we'll see.  I'm still running on first impressions.
>
> > Agree.   I take most social science type studies with an overdose of
> > salt.  
>
> Not sure the study in question falls into that category.  I mean, IQ
> can be measured objectively.  You may not like the way its measured.
> You may not like the implications, etc.

IQ is not measured "objectively." Shoe size, head circumference (if
the head is shaved), length of index finger -- all that can be
measured. IQ is self-reported. The individual takes a test. If a group
of individuals take the test enthusiatically and think the results are
meaningful and important, they'll try their best to do well. If a
particular group sees no meaning in the tests, finds them boring and
stupid, or, worse, knows that school will be less demanding if they do
badly, then they don't do well. On the individual level, even if
you're enthusiatic about the test and think it important, other
factors -- general health, sleep or lack of sleep, stress external to
the test, fret and worry -- wil affect your outcome. There are also
cultural biases built into IQ testing, and language can create false
results.

> American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle- Hide quoted text -

Wexford

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 5:01:37 PM3/2/10
to
On Mar 1, 11:40 am, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The study found that young adults who
> > said they were "very conservative" had
> > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > those who said they were "very liberal"
> > averaged 106.
>
> > Young adults who identify themselves
> > as "not at all religious" have an
> > average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
> > while those who identify themselves
> > as "very religious" have an average
> > IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>
> > ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) More intelligent people are statistically
> > significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and
> > political preferences that are novel to the human species in
> > evolutionary history.
>
> > Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women),
> > preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a
> > new study finds.
>
> http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html


*********************************************


> LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or
> Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women.

LDA women are overwhelmingly white, non-Hispanic and middle-class.
They should be doing better than everyone else. How do they compare
with other white, middle class groups? Oh, yes, they don't do as well
as Jewish women. How about white, non-Hispanic Catholics --
(Catholics are more than 20% of the population, and there are many
Catholic female sub-groups, e,g, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans who are
ethnically different than white women) -- in income groups comparable
to LDS women? How about white main-stream Protestants? How do they
compare with Presbyterians? How about Episcopalians? Or Lutherans?

> For graduate education the pattern was similar--a higher percentage of
> LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate
> education.

Yes. Meaningless comparison. See above.

> LDS women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations
> than Catholic or Protestant women.

Meaningless.

> Twenty-three percent of LDS women
> are employed in professional occupations, which is similar to Jewish
> women and women with no religious affiliation.

???? What's a "professional occupation?" Elementary school teaching?
Law? Medicine? Army Officer? With all that education and
accomplishment, why are only 23% in professional occupations?


> A recent national Advanced Placement study found Utah ranked first in
> the nation in both [AP] exams taken and exams passed on a per capita
> basis.

How does that compare with Nassau County, New York? Or Abington,
Pennsylvania? Utah's entire population is 2,736,424, about the same as
a medium-large city in the rest of the country.

> In 1997, more than one-fourth of Utah's high school graduates
> earned twelve or more hours of college credits while still in high
> school through the Advanced Placement Program

OK.

> Utah has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the nation
> (ranked third in 1990-92, with 93.9%


> Utah is ranked 2nd in proportion of the population who are high school

> graduates. 85.1% of Utah's adult population are high school graduates- Hide quoted text -

And this proves??? Mormonism is still the silliest sect ever devised
in America. Anyone who buys the bullshit spewed by Mormons has a screw
lose.

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 5:22:39 PM3/2/10
to

Sure it is.

> " Shoe size, head circumference (if
> the head is shaved), length of index finger -- all that can be
> measured.

Agreed.

> IQ is self-reported.

Not true. A person can have their IQ measured without even knowing
what it is.

> The individual takes a test. If a group
> of individuals take the test enthusiatically and think the results are
> meaningful and important, they'll try their best to do well.

One could say the same thing about a group of athletes in a race.
They might run fast, they might run slow. They might be jazzed up, or
they might be lazy. Whatever their condition their race time can
still be objectively measured.

True, the race time might be different on another day. And a person
may score differently on an IQ test on a different day, too. But none
of that means that the test isn't objective.

If the person administering the IQ test guessed at the score, *that*
would be non-objective. Just as it would be non-objective if the
person with the stop watch didn't look at it, and instead guessed how
fast the runners ran.

> If a
> particular group sees no meaning in the tests, finds them boring and
> stupid, or, worse, knows that school will be less demanding if they do
> badly, then they don't do well.

You are confused. The fact that a subjects performance depends on any
number of parameters has nothing to do with whether or not that
performance can be measured objectively at any given time.

Now, if you were to argue that an IQ test doesn't necessarily relate
to many aspects of a person's intelligence, especially over time,
you'd have a point worth arguing. And I'd even agree with you.

> On the individual level, even if
> you're enthusiatic about the test and think it important, other
> factors -- general health, sleep or lack of sleep, stress external to
> the test, fret and worry -- wil affect your outcome. There are also
> cultural biases built into IQ testing,

No doubt. Many have been illustrated. To the extent that they
persist the test isn't as objective as it can/should be.

> and language can create false
> results.

Just as running bare foot can affect the time in a foot race. Of
course the timing of the foot race is objective as long as it's done
with the proper equipment, whether or not the racer is bare foot,
shod, in a good mood, or pissy.

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 5:24:54 PM3/2/10
to

Actually, you should challenge Michael for references. I believe that
LDS women are more likely to *attend* college, but actually *less*
likely to graduate. It's a standing joke at BYU that the women that
go to school there are just looking for their Ms. degree.

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 6:47:51 PM3/2/10
to

Mormons are educated, more so than the rest of the population.

Grosso Modo

unread,
Mar 2, 2010, 7:21:13 PM3/2/10
to
On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:

> The study found that young adults who

Atheists study finds that atheists are smarter than anyone else.
What is surprising here? It is their usual ego tripping
and BRAGGING

> said they were "very conservative" had
> an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> those who said they were "very liberal"
> averaged 106.
>
> Young adults who identify themselves
> as "not at all religious" have an
> average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
> while those who identify themselves
> as "very religious" have an average
> IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>
> ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) More intelligent people are statistically
> significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and
> political preferences that are novel to the human species in
> evolutionary history.
>
> Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women),
> preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a
> new study finds.
>

> The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed
> scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to
> explain why people form particular preferences and values.
>
> The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than
> less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and
> values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values
> that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of
> years."
>
> "Evolutionarily novel" preferences and values are those that humans are
> not biologically designed to have and our ancestors probably did not
> possess.  In contrast, those that our ancestors had for millions of
> years are "evolutionarily familiar."
>
> "General intelligence, the ability to think and reason, endowed our
> ancestors with advantages in solving evolutionarily novel problems for
> which they did not have innate solutions," says Satoshi Kanazawa, an
> evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics and
> Political Science.  "As a result, more intelligent people are more
> likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations
> than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations
> are preferences, values, and lifestyles."
>
> An earlier study by Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals
> were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less
> intelligent individuals.  Because our ancestors lacked artificial light,
> they tended to wake up shortly before dawn and go to sleep shortly after
> dusk.  Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel.


>
> In the current study, Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily
> designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and
> friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of
> genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is

> evolutionarily novel.  So more intelligent children may be more likely
> to grow up to be liberals.
>
> Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add
> Health) support Kanazawa's hypothesis.  Young adults who subjectively
> identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during
> adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative"
> have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence.
>
> Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive
> agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at
> work behind otherwise natural phenomena.  "Humans are evolutionarily
> designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are
> paranoid," says Kanazawa.  This innate bias toward paranoia served
> humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and
> clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers.  "So, more
> intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their
> natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."


>
> Young adults who identify themselves as "not at all religious" have an
> average IQ of 103 during adolescence, while those who identify
> themselves as "very religious" have an average IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>

> In addition, humans have always been mildly polygynous in evolutionary
> history.  Men in polygynous marriages were not expected to be sexually
> exclusive to one mate, whereas men in monogamous marriages were.  In
> sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage,
> women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate.  So
> being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for
> women.
>
> And the theory predicts that more intelligent men are more likely to
> value sexual exclusivity than less intelligent men, but general
> intelligence makes no difference for women's value on sexual
> exclusivity.  Kanazawa's analysis of Add Health data supports these
> sex-specific predictions as well.
>
> One intriguing but theoretically predicted finding of the study is that
> more intelligent people are no more or no less likely to value such
> evolutionarily familiar entities as marriage, family, children, and friends.
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 10:31:12 AM3/3/10
to

Call for references.

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 10:33:22 AM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 10:31 am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Call for references.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

In your jail cell golaszewski you will be allowed to read books.
Request those that have the cites.
That is where I got that from, from reading.
You really should try it sometime.
It appears you will have plenty of time to do so.
Oh, arrest him immediately.

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 10:33:43 AM3/3/10
to
On Mar 2, 4:21 pm, Grosso Modo <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > The study found that young adults who
>
> Atheists study finds that atheists are smarter than anyone else.
> What is surprising here?  It is their usual ego tripping
> and BRAGGING

Where in the article does it say that the people conducting the study
were atheists?

As for ego tripping -- what bigger ego trip is there, than a theist
telling folks what god wants people to do?

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 10:35:03 AM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 10:33 am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mar 2, 4:21 pm, Grosso Modo <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > The study found that young adults who
>
> > Atheists study finds that atheists are smarter than anyone else.
> > What is surprising here?  It is their usual ego tripping
> > and BRAGGING
>
> Where in the article does it say that the people conducting the study
> were atheists?

Oh, so you think a theist is going to produce a study that says he is
dumber than
an atheist.
You are really stupid.

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 11:01:14 AM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 7:35 am, Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:33 am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 4:21 pm, Grosso Modo <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > The study found that young adults who
>
---

> > > Atheists study finds that atheists are smarter than anyone else.
> > > What is surprising here?  It is their usual ego tripping
> > > and BRAGGING
>
> > Where in the article does it say that the people conducting the study
> > were atheists?
>
> Oh, so you think a theist is going to produce a study that says he is
> dumber than
> an atheist.
> You are really stupid.

I notice that you ignored the question. Where in the article does it

haiku jones

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 11:32:17 AM3/3/10
to

Boy, that was a really, really wordy way
of saying "OK, I made it up".

Brevity, son, brevity...


Haiku Jones

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 11:49:16 AM3/3/10
to

--

> > > Mormons are educated, more so than the rest of the population.
>
> > Call for references.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> In your jail cell golaszewski you will be allowed to read books.
> Request those that have the cites.
> That is where I got that from, from reading.
> You really should try it sometime.
> It appears you will have plenty of time to do so.
> Oh, arrest him immediately.

Okay ... so the resident crazy guy just made it up (we already knew
that). For those that want the real scoop, here is some interesting
(and verifiable) information:

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=427

Mormons are significantly more likely than the population overall to
have some college education. Six-in-ten Mormons (61%) have at least
some college education, compared with half of the overall population.
However, the proportion of Mormons who graduate from college (18%) or
receive postgraduate education (10%) is similar to the population as a
whole (16% and 11%, respectively).

Converts tend to be older than lifelong Mormons. Nearly half of
converts (48%) are over age 50, compared with about three-in-ten
lifelong members (29%). Converts also tend to be less educated than
nonconverts (16% did not graduate from high school, compared with just
6% of lifelong members) and they earn decidedly lower incomes (40%
make less than $30,000 a year, compared with 21% among nonconverts).

Converts are more likely than lifelong members to come from minority
racial and ethnic groups. One-in-ten converts to Mormonism are black,
and nearly all black Mormons are converts. An additional one-in-ten
Mormon converts are Hispanic, and just 72% are white; by contrast, 91%
of lifelong Mormons are white. Converts are also more than three times
as likely as lifelong members to be immigrants to the U.S. (14% vs.
4%).

Now, having said all that (is the crazy guy still listening?) it's
important to note that being better than average isn't a very
remarkable achievement. After all (assuming a symmetric statistical
distribution) half the folks in America are better than the average.
And, one may assume, half the self-identifying groups in America are
also better than the average. So being better than average is sorta
"average."

hypa...@comcast.net

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 12:38:27 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 1, 2:52 pm, Jack <furgfurgj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:10 pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 12:08 pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> > > "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:8e470c41-5b6d-47b4...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html

> > > > LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or
> > > > Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women.
> > > > For graduate education the pattern was similar--a higher percentage of
> > > > LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate
> > > > education.
> > > > LDS women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations
> > > > than Catholic or Protestant women. Twenty-three percent of LDS women

> > > > are employed in professional occupations, which is similar to Jewish
> > > > women and women with no religious affiliation.
>
> > > But they're going to hell for participating in yet another legalistic,
> > > non-apostolic "I am Israel" cult which has no connection whatsoever to Jesus
> > > and His churches, so what's the advantage?
>
> > > Ike
>
> > To which group are you refering>
> It's okay to write "to" at the end of a sentence, no one could think
> less of you for it

would Unless you were being insulting.

In Philadelphia putting prepositions at the end of a sentence
is expected. 'What for?' and 'Why?' mean the same thiing.
And, 'Where yiz gone to?' is fairly obvious. And, there are
the ever popular 'Jeet?'* and 'payment'**. We were also too
classy in Northeast Philly to say 'youse'. We said 'yiz'***.

* Did you eat?
** pavement
*** you (plural)

hypa...@comcast.net

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 12:41:43 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 1, 5:05 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1 mar, 17:37, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 12:25 pm, Geode <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > On 1 mar, 16:40, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > > The study found that young adults who
> > > > > said they were "very conservative" had
> > > > > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > > > > those who said they were "very liberal"
> > > > > averaged 106.
>
> > > > > Young adults who identify themselves
> > > > > as "not at all religious" have an
> > > > > average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
> > > > > while those who identify themselves
> > > > > as "very religious" have an average
> > > > > IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>
> > > > > ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) More intelligent people are statistically
> > > > > significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and
> > > > > political preferences that are novel to the human species in
> > > > > evolutionary history.
>
> > > > > Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women),
> > > > > preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a
> > > > > new study finds.
>
> > > >http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html
>
> > > > LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or
> > > > Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women.
> > > > For graduate education the pattern was similar--a higher percentage of
> > > > LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate
> > > > education.
> > > > LDS women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations
> > > > than Catholic or Protestant women. Twenty-three percent of LDS women
> > > > are employed in professional occupations, which is similar to Jewish
> > > > women and women with no religious affiliation.
>
> > > > A recent national Advanced Placement study found Utah ranked first in
> > > > the nation in both [AP] exams taken and exams passed on a per capita
> > > > basis. In 1997, more than one-fourth of Utah's high school graduates

> > > > earned twelve or more hours of college credits while still in high
> > > > school through the Advanced Placement Program
>
> > > > Utah has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the nation
> > > > (ranked third in 1990-92, with 93.9%
>
> > > > Utah is ranked 2nd in proportion of the population who are high school
> > > > graduates. 85.1% of Utah's adult population are high school graduates
>
> > > I have not reasons to doubt this.  Most of all, the education of a
> > > child is related to the way that parents interact with his children.
> > > And the quality of this interaction is not related directly to
> > > religion. Many lower class people, teach their children to be
> > > disobedient to a certain degree.  There are ways to teach children to
> > > be obedient without the use of punishments, rebukes, speeches or
> > > slapping. If a couple of parents is very sensitive to the resistance
> > > of child to obey in a precise moment, one of their parents would have
> > > a reaction of repeating the order. It is probably that the boy would
> > > obey this second time, then the parent understand the child needs a
> > > repetition of the order.
>
> > > The case can be different of what it looks.  The human voice,
> > > specially, the voice of a mother or a father, works as a
> > > "reinforcer".  In that case, the parent is reinforcing the delay of
> > > the child to obey, for both had been contingent.  Then, because of
> > > this reinforcement, the child would present a new delay soon after the
> > > next order is presented.  This time, the parent is going to repeat his
> > > order, and sometimes give the child a short homily about that a boy
> > > has to be obedient. So this repetitions of orders, these homilies, are
> > > working slowly towards making the child more prone to resist orders,
> > > because they are usually "reinforced" with parental voices.
>
> > > In the case a parent is not very sensible to the delay of an order, he
> > > would think he is not praising enough his son for being obedient.  So,
> > > he waits patiently till the boy executes the order.  Then, he praises
> > > him for being a very good boy.  If this type of control is maintained
> > > in a systematic way, the boy learn to obey their parents with a high
> > > degree of predictability.  With this  behavioral instrumentation, the
> > > child would never present any challenge to his parent's authority.
>
> > > There is a lot more, we can talk about this.

>
> > Your overly verbose and irrelevant tripe, detracts from the point.
> > You can't lump the latter day saints in with apostate chrisianity
> > groups
> > in your arguments.
>
> > We are not apostate christianty, we are the LORDs church restored
> > once
> > again in preparation for his triumphal return to Earth in glory.
>
> save your crap for another occasion, man.
> i was not defending, not comparing LDS Christians with the rest of the
> pack.
> I am an atheist, and do not care what sort of shit do you believe.
>
> I was simple saying, that to raise a child properly has not a forced
> link with the scriptures of any religion.  Even, those that do not
> adhere to any church doctrine can do it very wrongly.
> .
> Geode

Geo?

Michael

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:08:15 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 11:01 am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Mar 3, 7:35 am, Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 3, 10:33 am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 4:21 pm, Grosso Modo <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > > The study found that young adults who
>
> ---
>
> > > > Atheists study finds that atheists are smarter than anyone else.
> > > > What is surprising here?  It is their usual ego tripping
> > > > and BRAGGING
>
> > > Where in the article does it say that the people conducting the study
> > > were atheists?
>
> > Oh, so you think a theist is going to produce a study that says he is
> > dumber than
> > an atheist.
> > You are really stupid.
>
> I notice that you ignored the question.  

I notice you are braindead.

Michael

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:08:54 PM3/3/10
to

No, it is a fact.
Because you aren't well read is not my problem, imbecilic robotard.

mg

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:09:20 PM3/3/10
to
. . .

>
> > > > > On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The study found that young adults who
> > > > > > said they were "very conservative" had
> > > > > > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > > > > > those who said they were "very liberal"
> 1) Labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" are highly subjective
> to begin with, and the study relied on on self-identification.  In
> other words, the study subjects were simply asked what their political
> alignment was.  That's not science, it's a scientifically-conducted
> opinion survey.
>
> 2) Altruism is very real observed behavior whose evolutionary
> mechanism is still somewhat misunderstood and contested, and is
> expressed by a number of different behaviors.  This study seems to be
> limited to only one aspect: "In the current study, Kanazawa argues

> that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring
> mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about
> an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never
> meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel."
>
> 3) IQ test performance is subject to significant variance that cannot
> be attributed to genetic inheritance alone -- childhood nutrition,
> social and emotional effects in the family environment, opportunities
> for stimulating activities such as art and music training, cultural
> biases in the test questions themselves, etc.
>
> 4) IQ is a very poor predictor of many aspects in the gamut of human
> behavior.  It shows positive correlation for income potential for
> instance, but specific job performance is actually better predicted by
> amount of experience.  IQ is silent on other aspects of human social
> interaction, so even if this study's results represent fact, the
> utility of of this knowledge seems limited.

>
> Overall, this "smells" a little pseudo-sciency -- _The Bell Curve_
> anyone? -- but we'll see.  I'm still running on first impressions.
>
> -Xan

Before Ronald Reagan, I would have classified myself as a right-
leaning agnostic. Now I classify myself as a left-leaning agnostic.
Usually, I just try to judge things as being true or false, or I try
to assign some sort of probability of being true or false. In this
case, I think we can conclude that it is probably true that scientists
did, in fact, administer a test, referred to as an "intelligence test"
and it is probably true that they got certain results from those tests
that correlate with the subject's self identification on the political
scale and his "evolutionary novel" and "evolutionarily familiar"
preferences and values.

IQ test are obviously just a tool that social scientists sometimes use
to help with their studies, just as electronic engineer might use a
multimeter, for example. If an electronic engineer, for instance,
reports that he measured 2 volts across R1, I wouldn't be interested
in a criticism that claims that ultimately human beings can never
measure anything and it's doubtful that a multimeter really measure
volts and even if it did, it can't be proven that it is perfectly
accurate. Engineers obviously know the limitation of volt meters and
I'm sure social scientist know the limitations of IQ tests and I'll
bet there have been volumes of studies, maybe one could fill a library
with them, on the limitations of IQ tests. So, I look at an argument
against the study based on the validity of IQ tests as being out of
place just as I would look at an argument against the engineer that
says that ultimately humans can never measure anything as being out of
place. That might actually be a valid argument, though, I don't know.
I remember I had a physics class once that talked about a theory that
says humans really can't measure anything.

I think the terms "evolutionarily novel" and "evolutionarily familiar"
probably fall in the same category. I wouldn't be surprised if there
has been volumes written on this subject also, but scientists have
probably arrived at some sort of generally accepted theory on what is
meant by those terms. So, the author(s) of this particular study are
probably just building on what has been generally agreed to as a
result of other studies. That doesn't mean, of course, that one can't
argue about our evolutionary, genetic propensities. In fact, if I were
religious, I might argue there is no such thing as human evolution to
begin with, but I tend to look at such arguments as also being out of
place when judging the merits of this particular study.

Michael

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:10:22 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 11:49 am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>

> Now, having said all that (is the crazy guy still listening?) it's
> important to note that being better than average isn't a very
> remarkable achievement.  

It is when it contradicts your claim that atheists are more
intelligent.

Michael

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:25:16 PM3/3/10
to
> place when judging the merits of this particular study.- Hide quoted text -

It was just an attempt by "manning" to try to influence the lurkers
out
there that since he is an atheist, he is smarter than a religious
person, so
they should support him.

Obviously any benefit said to reside on average with atheists of
greater intelligence
was lost on him, as we all know he flunked elementary school at least
twice, and
is mentally deficient, he being held back because it took him 3 years
to pass a particular
grade level in elementary school, him being really slow ...

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:31:35 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 11:08 am, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>


> > > > > Atheists study finds that atheists are smarter than anyone else.
> > > > > What is surprising here?  It is their usual ego tripping
> > > > > and BRAGGING
>
> > > > Where in the article does it say that the people conducting the study
> > > > were atheists?
>
> > > Oh, so you think a theist is going to produce a study that says he is
> > > dumber than
> > > an atheist.
> > > You are really stupid.
>
> > I notice that you ignored the question.  
>
> I notice you are braindead.

Okay. So we have another holy theist barfing up gratuitous insults.
But, really. You ignored the question: Where in the article does it

Antares 531

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:31:43 PM3/3/10
to
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:52:48 -0800 (PST), Jack <furgfu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 1, 12:10�pm, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 12:08�pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:8e470c41-5b6d-47b4...@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > >http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html

>> > > LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or
>> > > Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women.

>> > > For graduate education the pattern was similar--a higher percentage of
>> > > LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate
>> > > education.

>> > > LDS women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations

>> > > than Catholic or Protestant women. Twenty-three percent of LDS women


>> > > are employed in professional occupations, which is similar to Jewish
>> > > women and women with no religious affiliation.
>>

>> > But they're going to hell for participating in yet another legalistic,
>> > non-apostolic "I am Israel" cult which has no connection whatsoever to Jesus
>> > and His churches, so what's the advantage?
>>
>> > Ike
>>

>> To which group are you refering?- Hide quoted text -


>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

>It's okay to write "to" at the end of a sentence, no one could think

>less of you for it.
>
A dangling modifier is the kind of error, up with which I shall not
put.

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:34:47 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 11:10 am, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>


> > Mormons are significantly more likely than the population overall to
> > have some college education.
> > Now, having said all that (is the crazy guy still listening?) it's
> > important to note that being better than average isn't a very
> > remarkable achievement.  
>
> It is when it contradicts your claim that atheists are more
> intelligent.

First of all, it's not my claim. Secondly the claim was about scores
on IQ tests. Thirdly, you have made a common mistake by assuming that
just because Mormons are above average they are above everyone else.
You compared Mormons against the median of the population, not against
atheists. To prove your point you'd need to show that Mormon
graduation rates at university are higher than *atheist* graduation
rates.

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:35:41 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 11:08 am, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>


> > Boy, that was a really, really wordy way
> > of saying "OK, I made it up".
>
> No, it is a fact.

You still haven't provided a verifiable reference.

> Because you aren't well read is not my problem, imbecilic robotard.

And that, folks, is pretty typical of the intellect of many a Mormon.

haiku jones

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:38:48 PM3/3/10
to


Ah, so you didn't make it up after all? Excellent! Put
your source right here, for all to see and admire:


(use the back of this post if you need more room)


Haiku Jones

Geode

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:50:27 PM3/3/10
to
On 3 mar, 17:41, "hypati...@comcast.net" <hypati...@comcast.net>
wrote:

are you calling me?
Geode

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:53:51 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 11:25 am, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>


> It was just an attempt by "manning" to try to influence the lurkers
> out
> there that since he is an atheist, he is smarter than a religious
> person, so
> they should support him.

Manning's not an atheist. I'm an atheist. Others posting to the
group are atheists. But Manning isn't an atheist.

In fact, I've had some rather interesting arguments with Manning about
his belief in god.

Manning is on record, however, that he thinks your typical theist is
pretty stupid. I think, Michael, that you have helped to reinforce
that opinion of his.

Geode

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 2:55:57 PM3/3/10
to

the question is... which is the real meaning of an intelligence test?
What is the real aim, and what means, when you are thinking of a
pianist, a tennis player, or a hunter gatherer. Can you apply the
intelligence test to a hunter gatherer, or a pianist? And waht would
mean such a test?
Geode

Xan Du

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 3:40:06 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 2, 12:46 pm, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 1:20 am,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 11:38 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 1, 1:45 am,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 1, 2:08 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Feb 28, 11:11 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:

<snip>

> > Overall, this "smells" a little pseudo-sciency -- _The Bell Curve_
> > anyone? -- but we'll see.  I'm still running on first impressions.
>

> Agree.   I take most social science type studies with an overdose of
> salt.   I have friends and family who are fatally stupid reich
> wingers,  but has nothing to do with their
> IQ's which are likely higher than mine.
>
> This folds in with our discussion about post-hoc rationalization.    I
> think it takes more intelligence to rationalize  the  book of mormon
> than to recognize it for the fraud that it is.
>
> Think of the incredible mental gymnastics employed by apologists to
> explain steel swords and submarines!   I don't think I'm smart enough.
> :^)

When I was practicing LDS, I avoided "anti-Mormon" literature like
hell because I didn't want to have to think about it. But every once
in a while, something would slip in under the wire and I'd have to
deal with it. It was extremely important to me to preserve my belief,
so I worked very hard to make the dissonance go away. Once I had
satisfied myself and reached my desired conclusion, I dropped it.

That's very different from how I operate today. Dissonance is a good
thing and I welcome it because it tells me that there's something that
needs to be resolved. Also I try very hard to approach internal
conflicts objectively so that confirmation bias doesn't skew the
findings. I'm not perfect in that -- Mormon or not, humans have a
tendency to want to preserve existing beliefs because change can be
uncomfortable. In my case, my leaving Mormonism could be viewed as an
unmitigated disaster: it wrecked my marriage, distanced me from my
parents and alienated me from a lot of very good friends. What I
learned from that is the importance of constant self-questioning. One
might say that I'm religious about challenging any assumption,
observation or conclusion because I don't ever want to become so fully
vested in a false belief that rejecting it would cause such a
catastrophic social and psychological upheaval.

My hypothesis, based on my own admittedly anecdotal experience and
observation, is that atheists are on average more willing to be
skeptical of not only themselves, but any assertion about anything
than theists. Atheists are not constrained by a need to preserve a
belief system that has been imposed upon us by some some external
entity claiming absolute authority. There are no taboo subjects --
everything is open to debate and analysis. Atheists understand that
they alone are responsible for defining their own beliefs and morals,
and the necessary consequence of that is to have to think about a lot
of things, and think about them often if they want to discover truth.

Theists on the other hand only have to think enough to stop the
dissonance and come into conformity with their own preconceived
conclusions. I observe (anecdotally again) that many are largely
ignorant of the contradictory nature of their own scriptures. I also
observe a lot of post-hoc rationalization to explain away logical
inconsistencies, gaps in information, ambiguity of language, etc.
They get to a point where their internal b/s meter stops buzzing and
then stop thinking.

So, this doesn't necessarily mean that atheists are inherently more
intelligent than theists on average, just that atheists are on average
using their brain more often and more fully. That means more neural
activity resulting in more neural connection, more learning how to
learn, and overall better logical and critical thinking skills that
they have simply put forth more effort into developing. In other
words, I think think what might be the problem with this study is that
the causal mechanism isn't IQ leading to atheism, but rather that
people who are atheists expend the effort to increase the types of
thinking skills that IQ tests are designed to measure.

But I haven't read the full study, this is all the speculation of my
deliberately skeptical and admittedly imperfect brain, a brain that is
highly critical of its own previously theistic mode of operation.
It's damn interesting stuff though, I must say.

-Xan

Xan Du

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 3:51:26 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 2, 1:07 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mar 2, 9:46 am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 1:20 am,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 1, 11:38 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 1, 1:45 am,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 1, 2:08 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 28, 11:11 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:

<snip>

> > > Overall, this "smells" a little pseudo-sciency -- _The Bell Curve_
> > > anyone? -- but we'll see.  I'm still running on first impressions.
>
> > Agree.   I take most social science type studies with an overdose of
> > salt.  
>

> Not sure the study in question falls into that category.  I mean, IQ
> can be measured objectively.  You may not like the way its measured.
> You may not like the implications, etc.


>
> > I have friends and family who are fatally stupid reich
> > wingers,  but has nothing to do with their
> > IQ's which are likely higher than mine.
>

> Anecdotal evidence really has no place in a discussion about average
> differences between groups.

Would you agree that anecdotal evidence is a good basis for forming a
testable hypothesis?

> > This folds in with our discussion about post-hoc rationalization.    I
> > think it takes more intelligence to rationalize  the  book of mormon
> > than to recognize it for the fraud that it is.
>

> One of the problems with words like "intelligence" is that everyone
> seems to have their own opinion.

Yeah, me too :D

> Personally I don't know *any* really smart Mormons.  I know some that
> did well in school -- but I don't place a high premium on the ability
> to repeat what others tell you (and, yes, I did well in school).

Wait, isn't that an anecdote? :D :D :D

> I think of intelligence as the ability to handle data and derive
> rational/logical conclusions from it.  I'm especially impressed by
> folks that can arrive at rational conclusions that without being shown
> the formula first.  From that POV, Mormons are distinctly stupid (at
> least the ones professing the literal truth of the Book of Mormon).

See my previous previous post and tell me what you think. I would
only request that we keep Hitler and Aztecs out of it. I'm still
reeling from that one. I'm with your overall thesis here, just
deliberately picking on a few points for purposes of discussion.

-Xan

> > Think of the incredible mental gymnastics employed by apologists to
> > explain steel swords and submarines!   I don't think I'm smart enough.
> > :^)
>

> Don't sell yourself short.  It doesn't take an ounce of intelligence
> to write the clap trap that LDS apologists come up with.

Xan Du

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 3:57:02 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 1, 4:01 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:42 pm, Slim <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 2:40 pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "Slim" <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:3334337b-4e10-4432...@f35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Mar 1, 2:34 pm, "Ike E 2/23/2010" <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com>

> > > > wrote:
> > > >> "Michael" <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:07f7206e-5f9d-4bf7...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > [snip]

>
> > > >>> Your overly verbose and irrelevant tripe, detracts from the point.
> > > >>> You can't lump the latter day saints in with apostate chrisianity
> > > >>> groups in your arguments.
>
> > > >> The hell he can't--it's one of the most ridiculous apostate groups out
> > > >> there.
> > > > Which one?
>
> > > The Morons, aka the Mormons.
>
> > > It's just another "I am Israel" cult claiming to be "true Christianity"
>
> > Which it is.
>
> > No other church comes even close to even remotely resembling the LORDs
> > church as
> > revealed in the new testament.
>
> > Ours is a precise match.
>
> So, who made popcorn?
>
> Haiku Jones

I did!

-Xan

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 4:07:48 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 12:51 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 1:07 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>

<snip>


> > Anecdotal evidence really has no place in a discussion about average
> > differences between groups.
>
> Would you agree that anecdotal evidence is a good basis for forming a
> testable hypothesis?

Of course.

>
> > > This folds in with our discussion about post-hoc rationalization.    I
> > > think it takes more intelligence to rationalize  the  book of mormon
> > > than to recognize it for the fraud that it is.
>
> > One of the problems with words like "intelligence" is that everyone
> > seems to have their own opinion.
>
> Yeah, me too :D
>
> > Personally I don't know *any* really smart Mormons.  I know some that
> > did well in school -- but I don't place a high premium on the ability
> > to repeat what others tell you (and, yes, I did well in school).
>
> Wait, isn't that an anecdote? :D :D :D

There are two parts. The first, obviously (since it starts with the
word "personally") is an anecdote. And, I might add, I haven't tried
to argue the generality of it either.

The second half, though, is opinion (which is different than
anecdote). In my opinion, I don't place a high premium on the ability
to repeat what others tell you to do. I place a much higher premium
on the ability to think new and original thoughts. So Joseph Smith,
in spite of being immoral and a con man was a pretty smart guy in my
opinion. He had a lot of other mental issues (a lot of smart people
do) but he thought up something original -- a new American scam that
is bigger and badder than most. True, his scam is a conglomeration of
things borrowed/stolen from other religions, but it still retains an
air of originality. If I was grading his project I'd have to give him
an A.

>
> > I think of intelligence as the ability to handle data and derive
> > rational/logical conclusions from it.  I'm especially impressed by
> > folks that can arrive at rational conclusions that without being shown
> > the formula first.  From that POV, Mormons are distinctly stupid (at
> > least the ones professing the literal truth of the Book of Mormon).
>
> See my previous previous post and tell me what you think.  I would
> only request that we keep Hitler and Aztecs out of it.  I'm still
> reeling from that one.  I'm with your overall thesis here, just
> deliberately picking on a few points for purposes of discussion.

I don't think we're too far apart on what intelligence is or isn't.
For the record, although an IQ test is objective, I don't think it's a
very good measure of intelligence. Intelligence, from my experience,
has about umpteen bazilion dimensions and it just seems sorta silly to
try and boil all that down into one scalar.

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 4:11:56 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 12:40 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>


> My hypothesis, based on my own admittedly anecdotal experience and
> observation, is that atheists are on average more willing to be
> skeptical of not only themselves, but any assertion about anything
> than theists.  Atheists are not constrained by a need to preserve a
> belief system that has been imposed upon us by some some external
> entity claiming absolute authority.  There are no taboo subjects --
> everything is open to debate and analysis.  Atheists understand that
> they alone are responsible for defining their own beliefs and morals,
> and the necessary consequence of that is to have to think about a lot
> of things, and think about them often if they want to discover truth.

So .... it's hard to be smart when you're ignorant. And it's hard to
avoid ignorance with your testimony blinders on.

Cool.

<snip to end>

archie dux

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 5:19:59 PM3/3/10
to

Superb post. Honest, insightful, well put.

Some days Usenet is worth reading after all.


archie

Wexford

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 5:59:45 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 2, 5:22 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mar 2, 1:45 pm,Wexford<wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 1:07 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 9:46 am, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:

>
> > > > On Mar 2, 1:20 am, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 1, 11:38 pm, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 1, 1:45 am,XanDu <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mar 1, 2:08 am, mg <mgkel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 11:11 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 28, 5:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > snip
>
> > *********************

>
> > > > > Overall, this "smells" a little pseudo-sciency -- _The Bell Curve_
> > > > > anyone? -- but we'll see.  I'm still running on first impressions.
>
> > > > Agree.   I take most social science type studies with an overdose of
> > > > salt.  
>
> > > Not sure the study in question falls into that category.  I mean, IQ
> > > can be measured objectively.  You may not like the way its measured.
> > > You may not like the implications, etc.
>
> > IQ is not measured "objectively.
>
> Sure it is.
>
> > " Shoe size, head circumference (if
> > the head is shaved), length of index finger -- all that can be
> > measured.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >  IQ is self-reported.
>
> Not true.  A person can have their IQ measured without even knowing
> what it is.
>
> > The individual takes a test. If a group
> > of individuals take the test enthusiatically and think the results are
> > meaningful and important, they'll try their best to do well.
>
> One could say the same thing about a group of athletes in a race.
> They might run fast, they might run slow. They might be jazzed up, or
> they might be lazy.  Whatever their condition their race time can
> still be objectively measured.
>
> True, the race time might be different on another day.  And a person
> may score differently on an IQ test on a different day, too.  But none
> of that means that the test isn't objective.
>
> If the person administering the IQ test guessed at the score, *that*
> would be non-objective.  Just as it would be non-objective if the
> person with the stop watch didn't look at it, and instead guessed how
> fast the runners ran.
>
> >  If a
> > particular group sees no meaning in the tests, finds them boring and
> > stupid, or, worse, knows that school will be less demanding if they do
> > badly, then they don't do well.
>
> You are confused.  The fact that a subjects performance depends on any
> number of parameters has nothing to do with whether or not that
> performance can be measured objectively at any given time.
>
> Now, if you were to argue that an IQ test doesn't necessarily relate
> to many aspects of a person's intelligence, especially over time,
> you'd have a point worth arguing.  And I'd even agree with you.
>
> > On the individual level, even if
> > you're enthusiatic about the test and think it important, other
> > factors -- general health, sleep or lack of sleep, stress external to
> > the test, fret and worry -- wil affect your outcome. There are also
> > cultural biases built into IQ testing,
>
> No doubt.  Many have been illustrated.  To the extent that they
> persist the test isn't as objective as it can/should be.
>
> >  and language can create false
> > results.
>
> Just as running bare foot can affect the time in a foot race.  Of
> course the timing of the foot race is objective as long as it's done
> with the proper equipment, whether or not the racer is bare foot,
> shod, in a good mood, or pissy.

>
>
>
>
>
> > > > I have friends and family who are fatally stupid reich
> > > > wingers,  but has nothing to do with their
> > > > IQ's which are likely higher than mine.
>
> > > Anecdotal evidence really has no place in a discussion about average
> > > differences between groups.
>
> > > > This folds in with our discussion about post-hoc rationalization.    I
> > > > think it takes more intelligence to rationalize  the  book of mormon
> > > > than to recognize it for the fraud that it is.
>
> > > One of the problems with words like "intelligence" is that everyone
> > > seems to have their own opinion.
>
> > > Personally I don't know *any* really smart Mormons.  I know some that
> > > did well in school -- but I don't place a high premium on the ability
> > > to repeat what others tell you (and, yes, I did well in school).
>
> > > I think of intelligence as the ability to handle data and derive
> > > rational/logical conclusions from it.  I'm especially impressed by
> > > folks that can arrive at rational conclusions that without being shown
> > > the formula first.  From that POV, Mormons are distinctly stupid (at
> > > least the ones professing the literal truth of the Book of Mormon).
>
> > > > Think of the incredible mental gymnastics employed by apologists to
> > > > explain steel swords and submarines!   I don't think I'm smart enough.
> > > > :^)
>
> > > Don't sell yourself short.  It doesn't take an ounce of intelligence
> > > to write the clap trap that LDS apologists come up with.
>
> > > Duwayne Anderson
> > > Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> > > science"
> > > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Duwaynea, "objective" means that measurements can be made that are not
influenced by personal feelings. When scientists use the term it means
that measurements are taken using techniques that can not be
influenced by preconception, prejudice or any bias. A written test by
its very nature is influenced both consciously and unintentionally by
the biases of the test composer. It is also influenced by the
perceptions of the taker. Objective measures should be immune for such
influences. If I use a tape measure to measure the circumference of a
shaven head, I'll get something akin to an objective measure. Even
that type of measurement is not always free of bias. Gould, in his
book, "The Mismeasure of Man," demonstrates how 'objective' measures
of skull capacity (and brain size) were influenced by the techniques
used to measure them. However bad, those measurements are considerably
more objective than IQ test results.

Nothing done in behavioral psychology is objective. Behavioral
"science" in general is repleat with bunk, junk studies done that
prove little or nothing or that are repleat with errors, gaming,
faking and nonsense. I know. I had to wander through enough graduate
credits in behavioral studies to get a good flavor for just how
unscientific, how stupid, most of it is.

Your analogy of the race and racers is bunk, too. IQ testing isn't a
competition, and the affect of IQ testing on individuals can be so
harmful that it makes me suspect its advocates are at best stupid and
negligent, at worst malicious.

Wexford

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 6:09:03 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 2, 6:47 pm, Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 5:01 pm,Wexford<wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 11:40 am, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > > > The study found that young adults who
> > > > said they were "very conservative" had
> > > > an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas
> > > > those who said they were "very liberal"
> > > > averaged 106.
>
> > > > Young adults who identify themselves
> > > > as "not at all religious" have an
> > > > average IQ of 103 during adolescence,
> > > > while those who identify themselves
> > > > as "very religious" have an average
> > > > IQ of 97 during adolescence.
>
> > > > ScienceDaily (Feb. 24, 2010) More intelligent people are statistically
> > > > significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and
> > > > political preferences that are novel to the human species in
> > > > evolutionary history.
>
> > > > Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women),
> > > > preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a
> > > > new study finds.
>
> > >http://www.adherents.com/largecom/lds_dem.html
>
> > *********************************************

>
> > > LDS women are more likely to graduate from college than Catholic or
> > > Protestant women, but less likely than Jewish or nonaffiliated women.
>
> > LDA women are overwhelmingly white, non-Hispanic and middle-class.
> > They should be doing better than  everyone else. How do they compare
> > with other white, middle class groups? Oh, yes, they don't do as well
> > as Jewish women. How about white, non-Hispanic  Catholics --
> > (Catholics are more than 20% of the population, and there are many
> > Catholic female sub-groups, e,g, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans who are
> > ethnically different than white women) -- in income groups comparable
> > to LDS women?  How about white main-stream Protestants? How do they
> > compare with Presbyterians? How about Episcopalians? Or Lutherans?
>
> > > For graduate education the pattern was similar--a higher percentage of
> > > LDS than Catholic or Protestant women have received graduate
> > > education.
>
> > Yes. Meaningless comparison. See above.
>
> > > LDS women are more likely to be employed in professional occupations
> > > than Catholic or Protestant women.
>
> > Meaningless.

>
> > > Twenty-three percent of LDS women
> > > are employed in professional occupations, which is similar to Jewish
> > > women and women with no religious affiliation.
>
> > ???? What's a "professional occupation?" Elementary school teaching?
> > Law? Medicine? Army Officer? With all that education and
> > accomplishment, why are only 23% in professional occupations?
>
> > > A recent national Advanced Placement study found Utah ranked first in
> > > the nation in both [AP] exams taken and exams passed on a per capita
> > > basis.
>
> > How does that compare with Nassau County, New York? Or Abington,
> > Pennsylvania? Utah's entire population is 2,736,424, about the same as
> > a medium-large city in the rest of the country.
>
> > > In 1997, more than one-fourth of Utah's high school graduates
> > > earned twelve or more hours of college credits while still in high
> > > school through the Advanced Placement Program
>
> > OK.

>
> > > Utah has one of the highest high school graduation rates in the nation
> > > (ranked third in 1990-92, with 93.9%
> > > Utah is ranked 2nd in proportion of the population who are high school
> > > graduates. 85.1% of Utah's adult population are high school graduates- Hide quoted text -
>
> > And this proves???
>
> Mormons are educated, more so than the rest of the population.- Hide quoted

Really? How do they stack up against Episcopalians? Jews? Ethnic
Chinese? Vietnamese? American Buddhists? Ethnic Koreans?

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 7:09:41 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 2:59 pm, Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>
> Duwaynea,

That's "Duwayne" pilgrim. No "a" on the end.

> "objective" means that measurements can be made that are not
> influenced by personal feelings.

Correct.


> When scientists use the term it means
> that measurements are taken using techniques that can not be
> influenced by preconception, prejudice or any bias.

Actually, it's probably better to say "are not." Any measurement can
be influenced by sufficient prejudice -- even if it's to the point of
lying about what the instrument says.

> A written test by
> its very nature is influenced both consciously and unintentionally by
> the biases of the test composer.

Some are. If I'm testing your times tables then the test is pretty
damned objective. You either know the answer to "4*7" or you don't.

> It is also influenced by the
> perceptions of the taker.

Any test of any individual is "influenced by the perception of the
taker."

Look, I know you want to win an argument, but you are taking a
position that ends in some really goofy conclusions. According to you
it's impossible to measure a person's height because they might slouch
during the test. And it's impossible to objectively measure their
weight because they might wiggle on the scales.

Every measurement has sources of error, but we can reasonably conclude
that the measurement is still "objective" if the sources of error are
sufficiently small.

You seem to be arguing that *any* amount of error means that the test
isn't objective. Period.

> Objective measures should be immune for such
> influences.

Largely immune, for sure.

> If I use a tape measure to measure the circumference of a
> shaven head, I'll get something akin to an objective measure.

Not really. In fact, you might want to read the book "The mismeasure
of man" by Gould. He describes exactly how people made the sorts of
measurements you describe and they did it in a distinctly *non-
objective* manner.

If it's a cloth tape, for example, the measurement can be influenced
by how hard the cloth is pulled around the head. The measurement can
also be influenced by the point at which the circumference is measured
(your head isn't a sphere, you know) and a dozen other ways, too.

Still I'd call it an "objective" measurement. You, though, would
apparently *not* call it an objective measurement by your standards
for IQ tests.

> Even
> that type of measurement is not always free of bias. Gould, in his
> book, "The Mismeasure of Man," demonstrates how 'objective' measures
> of skull capacity (and brain size) were influenced by the techniques
> used to measure them.

Well, howdy doody. You already knew all that stuff I wrote.

And that's the point, isn't it? No measurement is completely free of
bias. Still, we can talk about the level of objectivity in a test and
the size of the errors. I'm not saying that IQ tests cannot be
influenced by personal bias. After all, just about *any* test can be
influenced by personal bias. And lord knows I'm not saying that an IQ
test doesn't have errors. After all, *every* test has errors.

I'm simply saying that an IQ test meets the general criteria for being
"objective." It measures something (don't even have to know exactly
what) in a way that meets overall requirements for objectivity.

> However bad, those measurements are considerably
> more objective than IQ test results.

I may even agree with that.

>
> Nothing done in behavioral psychology is objective.

Now, see this is where you fall off the radish truck. "Nothing" is a
really big word, and by making that statement you illustrate that,
frankly, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

> Behavioral
> "science" in general is repleat with bunk,

Even if that's true, "generally repleat" doesn't equate to "nothing."

> junk studies done that
> prove little or nothing or that are repleat with errors, gaming,
> faking and nonsense. I know. I had to wander through enough graduate
> credits in behavioral studies to get a good flavor for just how
> unscientific, how stupid, most of it is.

When you make sweeping, emotionally laden statements like that it's
probably time to take a deep breath, compose yourself, and read up on
the subject before you write anymore about it.

I'm a physicist by training. I understand that a lot (most?) of
"behavioral science" doesn't stand up to the standards in science, but
to say that "nothing" in behavior sciences is objective is just not
true.

> Your analogy of the race and racers is bunk, too.

Of course not.

> IQ testing isn't a
> competition,

The racer can race against the clock. In that case the racer is
competing with himself for a good score, exactly as with an IQ test.

> and the affect of IQ testing on individuals can be so
> harmful that it makes me suspect its advocates are at best stupid and
> negligent, at worst malicious.

Running a race can be harmful to. You might fall down.

And I agree with your assessment that taking an IQ test might be
harmful. But that has nothing to do with whether or not it's
objective.

So, take a chill pill.

Later,

Duwayne (no "a" on the end) Anderson

sully

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 7:24:51 PM3/3/10
to

I'm impressed w/ people who can do that. But the difficulty of doing
it doesn't
necessarily define the act (of leaving the church) as correct. For
example,
you could be agnostic and fall to a religious cult, say JWs, and in
the act
also alienate your family, friends, etc.

And those of us who proclaim that "now I am a better critical
thinker", drive
me to think of the newly religious in a sect change "I once was lost
but now
I'm found". I see it as sort of an "atheistic evangelism".

The atheists on ARM are excellent critical thinkers. I strongly
suspect
they always were, but simply compartmentalized the mormonism from
it.

I can think of some brilliant scientists, people who have advanced a
field
incredibly who can get caught up in a ridiculous belief system that is
impervious
to reason.

And indeed, there are a great many things that you have what might be
called a
"closed mind" about. For example, when the missionaries come by
your place and
ask you to pray really hard over the BOM, do you do that? Of course
not, been there,
done that.

So your mind is not completely open, right? Of course, I agree
with you not doing it, and indeed I think it would be a waste of
time. But you don't challenge all of your thinking, do you?

>
> My hypothesis, based on my own admittedly anecdotal experience and
> observation, is that atheists are on average more willing to be
> skeptical of not only themselves, but any assertion about anything
> than theists.  Atheists are not constrained by a need to preserve a
> belief system that has been imposed upon us by some some external
> entity claiming absolute authority.  There are no taboo subjects --
> everything is open to debate and analysis.  Atheists understand that
> they alone are responsible for defining their own beliefs and morals,
> and the necessary consequence of that is to have to think about a lot
> of things, and think about them often if they want to discover truth.

ARM is not a peer reviewed journal, it's a discussion forum.
Anecdotes are
welcome. I like yours better than mine!

Not all atheists are created alike, and we also accept authority, but
we simply
have a different set of rules for it than a burning of the bosom.

We should also recognize that most of us are converted atheists, we
once were
TB somethings, and rejected it. It would be interesting to compare
that
to those who were raised within an atheistic household, my kids for
example.

One worry I had as kids finished HS is when they went off to college,
maybe got
lonely, or down about things, that they would be subject to some
cult.

I think the process of rejection of a strong religious
belief is different than never having one.

I dunno, maybe it's enough to root for your High School teams then
graduate... :^)

>
> Theists on the other hand only have to think enough to stop the
> dissonance and come into conformity with their own preconceived
> conclusions.  I observe (anecdotally again) that many are largely
> ignorant of the contradictory nature of their own scriptures.  I also
> observe a lot of post-hoc rationalization to explain away logical
> inconsistencies, gaps in information, ambiguity of language, etc.
> They get to a point where their internal b/s meter stops buzzing and
> then stop thinking.
>
> So, this doesn't necessarily mean that atheists are inherently more
> intelligent than theists on average, just that atheists are on average
> using their brain more often and more fully.  That means more neural
> activity resulting in more neural connection, more learning how to
> learn, and overall better logical and critical thinking skills that
> they have simply put forth more effort into developing.  In other
> words, I think think what might be the problem with this study is that
> the causal mechanism isn't IQ leading to atheism, but rather that
> people who are atheists expend the effort to increase the types of
> thinking skills that IQ tests are designed to measure.

Where I think this analysis fails as far as that study goes, is that
the IQ tests were taken in adolescence, and the random sample
interview
done years later.

One can imagine being a TB theist at age 25 and an atheist at 40,
right?


Also, since the interview was about liberal vs conservative (very
fluid and
subjective self-descriptors) there is likely to be an age dependence
on that
as well, I didn't look closely at study to see what ages they picked
for interview.

>
> But I haven't read the full study, this is all the speculation of my
> deliberately skeptical and admittedly imperfect brain, a brain that is
> highly critical of its own previously theistic mode of operation.
> It's damn interesting stuff though, I must say.

I read enough to see what the sampling method was, and what data sets
they used,
little else.

religious thinking, like critical thinking, has evolved and been
selected for. The years
of human history that have been more complex than hunter/gatherer is
just 10k years,
a drop in the bucket on evolutionary scales. Religious thinking had
advantages that helped humans for millions of years prior. Simply,
it is best for the survival of a group to simply follow a smart leader
rather than to battle to the death to see who's right.

I recognize my own religious thinking, and accept it, at times even
embrace it, including
compartmentalization, or self-contradiction.

But my 'conversion' was not painful or dramatic, and had no problem
fulfilling my grandmother's promise to hold a Catholic mass for her
(in Latin... ding ding expensive!)
after she was gone.

Interesting, indeed, Xan, thanks for the thoughts..

Xan Du

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 7:57:14 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 4:07 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mar 3, 12:51 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 1:07 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Anecdotal evidence really has no place in a discussion about average
> > > differences between groups.
>
> > Would you agree that anecdotal evidence is a good basis for forming a
> > testable hypothesis?
>
> Of course.
>
>
>
> > > > This folds in with our discussion about post-hoc rationalization. I
> > > > think it takes more intelligence to rationalize the book of mormon
> > > > than to recognize it for the fraud that it is.
>
> > > One of the problems with words like "intelligence" is that everyone
> > > seems to have their own opinion.
>
> > Yeah, me too :D
>
> > > Personally I don't know *any* really smart Mormons. I know some that
> > > did well in school -- but I don't place a high premium on the ability
> > > to repeat what others tell you (and, yes, I did well in school).
>
> > Wait, isn't that an anecdote? :D :D :D
>
> There are two parts. The first, obviously (since it starts with the
> word "personally") is an anecdote. And, I might add, I haven't tried
> to argue the generality of it either.

Reason I brought it up is that I have an atheist friend who is a
fairly conservative republican, and I sent him the link to the
article. I explained to him that I was skeptical of its conclusions,
and explained why. He fired back with a lot of anecdotes about how
he's known just as many, if not more conservatives who were as smart
as or smarter than liberals, and then concluded that the study was
"complete bullshit" on that basis.

> The second half, though, is opinion (which is different than
> anecdote). In my opinion, I don't place a high premium on the ability
> to repeat what others tell you to do. I place a much higher premium
> on the ability to think new and original thoughts. So Joseph Smith,
> in spite of being immoral and a con man was a pretty smart guy in my
> opinion. He had a lot of other mental issues (a lot of smart people
> do) but he thought up something original -- a new American scam that
> is bigger and badder than most. True, his scam is a conglomeration of
> things borrowed/stolen from other religions, but it still retains an
> air of originality. If I was grading his project I'd have to give him
> an A.

A lot of belief in Joseph Smith's status as a true prophet of God
seems to be based on the story that he only had a third-grade
education. (I've actually never verified that story myself.) That
always struck me as a weak argument because I just don't equate formal
education to intelligence or capability. My view of the man is that
he was supremely intelligent, charismatic, and convincing -- the very
qualities one needs to run a good scam.

> > > I think of intelligence as the ability to handle data and derive
> > > rational/logical conclusions from it. I'm especially impressed by
> > > folks that can arrive at rational conclusions that without being shown
> > > the formula first. From that POV, Mormons are distinctly stupid (at
> > > least the ones professing the literal truth of the Book of Mormon).
>
> > See my previous previous post and tell me what you think. I would
> > only request that we keep Hitler and Aztecs out of it. I'm still
> > reeling from that one. I'm with your overall thesis here, just
> > deliberately picking on a few points for purposes of discussion.
>
> I don't think we're too far apart on what intelligence is or isn't.
> For the record, although an IQ test is objective, I don't think it's a
> very good measure of intelligence. Intelligence, from my experience,
> has about umpteen bazilion dimensions and it just seems sorta silly to
> try and boil all that down into one scalar.

Me too. I'd like to read the actual study, or at least see a better
writeup of it. I think there's more to it that isn't being covered by
the headline or the article itself.

-Xan

Xan Du

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 8:04:45 PM3/3/10
to
On Mar 3, 4:11 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That's my latest schtick.

-Xan

Xan Du

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 8:06:55 PM3/3/10
to

Superb compliment, much appreciated. Makes me want to keep it up.

-Xan

Xan Du

unread,
Mar 3, 2010, 8:47:23 PM3/3/10
to

Absolutely. One woman I baptized on my mission had been an active
Baha'i. Members of her congregation requested a sit-down with us to
voice their concerns and ask us some questions, which we accepted.
(We got to count the contacts in our stats for the week for one
thing ...) After a lot of polite back and forth, I pulled my trump
card, "look, I've prayed about this, she's prayed about this, we have
our answer from God that this is his True Church." The response of
course was that they'd all prayed about their faith and gotten the
same answer.

Now, it's not that I hadn't heard that before, or even thought about
it -- but even on my mission I had serious doubts about what I was
doing. That episode put a very fine point on the importance of being
honest about not only what you believe, but about what you question
and what you don't know. I didn't feel like I had the freedom to do
that in the LDS church, but I know I have that freedom now. It's the
best feeling in the world.

> And those of us who proclaim that "now I am a better critical
> thinker", drive
> me to think of the newly religious in a sect change "I once was lost
> but now
> I'm found". I see it as sort of an "atheistic evangelism".
>
> The atheists on ARM are excellent critical thinkers. I strongly
> suspect
> they always were, but simply compartmentalized the mormonism from
> it.

I surely did that. There were some things I just did not allow myself
to think about.

> I can think of some brilliant scientists, people who have advanced a
> field
> incredibly who can get caught up in a ridiculous belief system that is
> impervious
> to reason.
>
> And indeed, there are a great many things that you have what might be
> called a
> "closed mind" about. For example, when the missionaries come by
> your place and
> ask you to pray really hard over the BOM, do you do that? Of course
> not, been there,
> done that.
>
> So your mind is not completely open, right? Of course, I agree
> with you not doing it, and indeed I think it would be a waste of
> time. But you don't challenge all of your thinking, do you?

No, of course not. The best I can do is put a high priority on
challenging my own thinking, particularly when I detect any conflict
or doubt.

> > My hypothesis, based on my own admittedly anecdotal experience and
> > observation, is that atheists are on average more willing to be
> > skeptical of not only themselves, but any assertion about anything
> > than theists. Atheists are not constrained by a need to preserve a
> > belief system that has been imposed upon us by some some external
> > entity claiming absolute authority. There are no taboo subjects --
> > everything is open to debate and analysis. Atheists understand that
> > they alone are responsible for defining their own beliefs and morals,
> > and the necessary consequence of that is to have to think about a lot
> > of things, and think about them often if they want to discover truth.
>
> ARM is not a peer reviewed journal, it's a discussion forum.
> Anecdotes are
> welcome. I like yours better than mine!

Well thanks. I like your questions a lot.

> Not all atheists are created alike, and we also accept authority, but
> we simply
> have a different set of rules for it than a burning of the bosom.
>
> We should also recognize that most of us are converted atheists, we
> once were
> TB somethings, and rejected it. It would be interesting to compare
> that
> to those who were raised within an atheistic household, my kids for
> example.

Spot on. I hope that's sommething that gets done as a result of this
study, I think that's the really interesting story. Not the IQ, but
the process behind why people abandon faith-based beliefs for purely
secular ones.

> One worry I had as kids finished HS is when they went off to college,
> maybe got
> lonely, or down about things, that they would be subject to some
> cult.
>
> I think the process of rejection of a strong religious
> belief is different than never having one.
>
> I dunno, maybe it's enough to root for your High School teams then
> graduate... :^)

I certainly agree with that. I'm fine with people believing in
religion so long as they don't try to take away other people's
freedoms and rights based on their particular flavor of God.

But one question I have for all atheism evangelists, including myself,
is, "would the world really be better without religion?". I'd like to
think the answer is "yes", but right now that's a very big open
question for me. And I think that's a fun thing to think about.

You have an actual copy of the study? Can you send it to me if so?

> > But I haven't read the full study, this is all the speculation of my
> > deliberately skeptical and admittedly imperfect brain, a brain that is
> > highly critical of its own previously theistic mode of operation.
> > It's damn interesting stuff though, I must say.
>
> I read enough to see what the sampling method was, and what data sets
> they used,
> little else.
>
> religious thinking, like critical thinking, has evolved and been
> selected for. The years
> of human history that have been more complex than hunter/gatherer is
> just 10k years,
> a drop in the bucket on evolutionary scales.

Sentient intelligence has profoundly accelerated things on this rock.
You ever read anything on Raymond Kurzweil, transhumanism, the
technological singularity, etc.? I note that PZ Myers is one of his
critics as well.

> Religious thinking had
> advantages that helped humans for millions of years prior. Simply,
> it is best for the survival of a group to simply follow a smart leader
> rather than to battle to the death to see who's right.
>
> I recognize my own religious thinking, and accept it, at times even
> embrace it, including
> compartmentalization, or self-contradiction.

Heh, me too. I especially like self-contradiction. I've had some
good conversations with myself.

> But my 'conversion' was not painful or dramatic, and had no problem
> fulfilling my grandmother's promise to hold a Catholic mass for her
> (in Latin... ding ding expensive!)
> after she was gone.

Awesome.

> Interesting, indeed, Xan, thanks for the thoughts..

Same.

-Xan

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 4, 2010, 10:37:14 AM3/4/10
to
On Mar 3, 4:57 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 4:07 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 12:51 pm, Xan Du <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 2, 1:07 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > Anecdotal evidence really has no place in a discussion about average
> > > > differences between groups.
>
> > > Would you agree that anecdotal evidence is a good basis for forming a
> > > testable hypothesis?
>
> > Of course.
>
> > > > > This folds in with our discussion about post-hoc rationalization.    I
> > > > > think it takes more intelligence to rationalize  the  book of mormon
> > > > > than to recognize it for the fraud that it is.
>
> > > > One of the problems with words like "intelligence" is that everyone
> > > > seems to have their own opinion.
>
> > > Yeah, me too :D
>
> > > > Personally I don't know *any* really smart Mormons.  I know some that
> > > > did well in school -- but I don't place a high premium on the ability
> > > > to repeat what others tell you (and, yes, I did well in school).
>
> > > Wait, isn't that an anecdote? :D :D :D
>
---

> > There are two parts.  The first, obviously (since it starts with the
> > word "personally") is an anecdote.  And, I might add, I haven't tried
> > to argue the generality of it either.
>
> Reason I brought it up is that I have an atheist friend who is a
> fairly conservative republican, and I sent him the link to the
> article.  I explained to him that I was skeptical of its conclusions,
> and explained why.  He fired back with a lot of anecdotes about how
> he's known just as many, if not more conservatives who were as smart
> as or smarter than liberals, and then concluded that the study was
> "complete bullshit" on that basis.

Nice anecdote :-)

Seriously, I think a rigorous course in statistics should be mandatory
for graduation from grade school. Think how much better off we'd be
as a society if people understood the rudimentary concepts in sampling
theory!

> > The second half, though, is opinion (which is different than
> > anecdote).  In my opinion, I don't place a high premium on the ability
> > to repeat what others tell you to do.  I place a much higher premium
> > on the ability to think new and original thoughts.  So Joseph Smith,
> > in spite of being immoral and a con man was a pretty smart guy in my
> > opinion.  He had a lot of other mental issues (a lot of smart people
> > do) but he thought up something original -- a new American scam that
> > is bigger and badder than most.  True, his scam is a conglomeration of
> > things borrowed/stolen from other religions, but it still retains an
> > air of originality.  If I was grading his project I'd have to give him
> > an A.
>
> A lot of belief in Joseph Smith's status as a true prophet of God
> seems to be based on the story that he only had a third-grade
> education.  (I've actually never verified that story myself.)

I doubt that the story is true, but it really doesn't matter. It
doesn't take an education to have an imagination. And, at any rate,
the original Book of Mormon read like a person with a 3rd grade
education wrote it anyway (the Mormon Church has cleaned it up
enormously, you know). Here's a link worth reading:

http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bom/written.shtml

> That
> always struck me as a weak argument because I just don't equate formal
> education to intelligence or capability.  My view of the man is that
> he was supremely intelligent, charismatic, and convincing -- the very
> qualities one needs to run a good scam.

Exactly.

Or, to sell used cars or Amway, for that matter.

>
>
>
> > > > I think of intelligence as the ability to handle data and derive
> > > > rational/logical conclusions from it.  I'm especially impressed by
> > > > folks that can arrive at rational conclusions that without being shown
> > > > the formula first.  From that POV, Mormons are distinctly stupid (at
> > > > least the ones professing the literal truth of the Book of Mormon).
>
> > > See my previous previous post and tell me what you think.  I would
> > > only request that we keep Hitler and Aztecs out of it.  I'm still
> > > reeling from that one.  I'm with your overall thesis here, just
> > > deliberately picking on a few points for purposes of discussion.
>
> > I don't think we're too far apart on what intelligence is or isn't.
> > For the record, although an IQ test is objective, I don't think it's a
> > very good measure of intelligence.  Intelligence, from my experience,
> > has about umpteen bazilion dimensions and it just seems sorta silly to
> > try and boil all that down into one scalar.
>
> Me too.  I'd like to read the actual study, or at least see a better
> writeup of it.  I think there's more to it that isn't being covered by
> the headline or the article itself.

The article is only mildly interesting. Although an IQ test is
objective, I don't think that what it measures is well understood or
terribly relevant. I've never had mine measured, don't feel compelled
to measure it, and probably never will.

Duwaynea Anderson

unread,
Mar 4, 2010, 11:07:01 AM3/4/10
to
On Mar 3, 2:59 pm, Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>


> Duwaynea, "objective" means that measurements can be made that are not
> influenced by personal feelings. When scientists use the term it means
> that measurements are taken using techniques that can not be
> influenced by preconception, prejudice or any bias.

That usually applies to the person administering the test, not the
person taking the test.

For example, when I go to the doctor she measures my weight, blood
pressure, and my heart rate. Here measurements use medical
instruments that are absolutely objective. However, I can influence
the measurements she makes. For example, I can rise on my toes during
the weight measurement, slightly skewing the result. I can meditate
when she measures my blood pressure, lowering it, or I can fixate on
the needle on the counter and raise my blood pressure. I can
similarly adjust my pulse rate up or down.

The fact that my mental state can change the measurement has little or
nothing to do with the fact that the doctor is administering an
objective test of my various bodily characteristics. Her tests are
objectively measuring the blood pressure in my body, the pulse rate of
my heart, and the weight of my frame.

> A written test by
> its very nature is influenced both consciously and unintentionally by
> the biases of the test composer.

Bias is certainly *possible* in a written test, but it is not
inevitable.

> It is also influenced by the
> perceptions of the taker.

It certainly *can* be.

> Objective measures should be immune for such
> influences.

Of course. No disagreement there. Most tests, however, are not
"immune" but can be made "mostly immune."

> If I use a tape measure to measure the circumference of a
> shaven head, I'll get something akin to an objective measure. Even
> that type of measurement is not always free of bias. Gould, in his
> book, "The Mismeasure of Man," demonstrates how 'objective' measures
> of skull capacity (and brain size) were influenced by the techniques
> used to measure them.

Gould's point was that small errors were imperceptibly introduced into
an otherwise pretty objective test. If you go back and read Gould I
think you'll find that you've missed the real point he was making --
and it wasn't so much about the nature of the test but the conclusions
that were drawn from it. Namely that small differences in the means
of distributions are insignificant when the standard deviations are
wide.

For example, suppose two distributions have means separated by 0.1
standard deviation -- then the distributions almost perfectly overlap
and there is little of substance that can be said about the
differences between the individuals in the two groups.

True, the small differences were probably caused by bias on the part
of the researchers, but the real message in Gould's analysis is that
*even* *If* the differences in the means were real, the differences
were small compared to the standard deviations and so conclusions
about individuals in the groups were not statistically defensible.

In other words, Gould holds his greatest condemnation for the
analysis.

> However bad, those measurements are considerably
> more objective than IQ test results.

That may be true. But both measurements were "objective" in the
principle. Any researcher can take an "objective" measurement and
goober it up.

Let's look at blood pressure, for example. A racist bent on proving
that Blacks are less healthy than Whites might pull the cuff a little
tighter when measuring the blood pressure of a Black man than when
measuring the blood pressure of a White man. That would skew the
results. However, the fact that the test might be done poorly, or
might be influenced by personal bias, doesn't mean that measuring
blood pressure is an non-objective test.

>
> Nothing done in behavioral psychology is objective.

Don't be stupid.

People are collections of atoms. Ultimately their behavior is
determined by physics, chemistry, and evolution. There's no rational
basis for asserting that the behavior of certain clumps of atoms
cannot be objectively measured.

We objectively measure the behavior of birds, dogs, cats, and apes.
There is simply no rational basis for asserting that the behavior of
people cannot be measured objectively, too.

> Behavioral
> "science" in general is repleat with bunk, junk studies done that
> prove little or nothing or that are repleat with errors, gaming,
> faking and nonsense.

Even if that were true it doesn't support your assertion that
*Nothing* done in behavioral psychology is objective.

> I know. I had to wander through enough graduate
> credits in behavioral studies to get a good flavor for just how
> unscientific, how stupid, most of it is.

Thanks for the anecdote. BTW, anecdotes really are non-objective.

>
> Your analogy of the race and racers is bunk, too. IQ testing isn't a
> competition,

What in hells bells are you talking about?

Of course it is. Anyone taking an IQ test wants to have a higher
score than a lower score. Just as anyone running a race wants a
shorter time than a longer time.

And your comment is irrelevant, too. Whether or not the person being
tested can change the outcome of the test is irrelevant to the
objectivity of the test itself. An objective test is one where the
state of mind of the test *administrator* doesn't matter.


The fact you can mentally influence your heart rate or blood pressure
doesn't mean both can't be objectively measured. The fact your mental
state of mind may affect how fast you run a race doesn't mean your
time can't be objectively measured. And the fact your mental state
may affect your score on an IQ test doesn't mean the IQ test isn't
objective.

Didn't you learn any of that in graduate school?

> and the affect of IQ testing on individuals can be so
> harmful that it makes me suspect its advocates are at best stupid and
> negligent, at worst malicious.

Whether or not a test hurts your feelings has nothing to do with it
being objective or not objective.

It might be harmful to tell a fat girl she weighs 285 pounds. But her
weight can still be measured objectively.

You have managed to let your emotional objection to conclusions that
might be drawn from an IQ test interfere in your objective assessment
of the test.

Look, I agree that IQ tests are probably not very useful in drawing
conclusions about people. I agree that sharing the results of IQ
tests can be harmful to the takers -- particularly young and
impressionable children. I agree that IQ tests can be fudged and
manipulated by people for nefarious purposes.

But that doesn't necessarily support the conclusion that the test
isn't objective.

Jimbo

unread,
Mar 4, 2010, 11:23:27 AM3/4/10
to
On Mar 2, 1:41 pm, Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 11:53 am, Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 11:42 am, Judgement Day <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 7:15 pm, Brian E. Clark
>
> > > <brianecl...@address.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > > > In article <22162167-57d5-47ef-8cb5-c5fde2d19535
> > > > @g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, yost...@hotmail.com says...

>
> > > > > > It's just another "I am Israel" cult claiming to be "true Christianity"
>
> > > > > Which it is.
>
> > > > So are all the others, in the eyes of their supporters.

>
> > > > > No other church comes even close to even remotely resembling the LORDs
> > > > > church as
> > > > > revealed in the new testament.
>
> > > > That's what they all say. Literally.

>
> > > > > Ours is a precise match.
>
> > > > According to your interpretations, your interpretations are
> > > > correct.
>
> > > There are 40 identifying signs of the LORDs church in the new
> > > testament
>
> > There are identifying signs to the city of Detroit.   That doesn't
> > mean I want to go there.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No one is making you go there

You're wrong. I was forced to go to Detroit to serve jury duty just
last year.

In reference to "the lord's church", we're going to keep it that way..

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 4, 2010, 1:03:33 PM3/4/10
to
On Mar 3, 2:34 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I would, but you don't have an atheistic state here in the country.

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 4, 2010, 1:06:54 PM3/4/10
to
On Mar 3, 2:31 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mar 3, 11:08 am, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > > Atheists study finds that atheists are smarter than anyone else.
> > > > > > What is surprising here?  It is their usual ego tripping
> > > > > > and BRAGGING
>
> > > > > Where in the article does it say that the people conducting the study
> > > > > were atheists?
>
> > > > Oh, so you think a theist is going to produce a study that says he is
> > > > dumber than
> > > > an atheist.
> > > > You are really stupid.
>
> > > I notice that you ignored the question.  
>
> > I notice you are braindead.
>
> Okay.  So we have another holy theist barfing up gratuitous insults.
> But, really.  You ignored the question:

I have seen you do this repeatedly here on usenet.

What you say?

When someone answers a question, you pretend they haven't, and then
simply
repeat your questions over and over.

The result of this, is that you never learn, and you think maybe
someone out there
will fall for your lie that they haven't actually answered it, when
they have.
Also, if someone else jumps in, you will start repeating the questions
to them repeatedly, haranging them incessantly.

It is a sign of your mental illness and childish stupidity.

So what was the answer I gave?

Let me give it again plus another one.

It is very unlikely a theist is going to produce a scientific study
that shows that they
are dumber than an atheist. Also, as you point out all the time on
usenet, the majority
of scientists are atheist. That being the case, there is a high
probability that this was done
by an atheist.

Judgement Day

unread,
Mar 4, 2010, 1:10:01 PM3/4/10
to
On Mar 3, 2:53 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mar 3, 11:25 am, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It was just an attempt by "manning" to try to influence the lurkers
> > out
> > there that since he is an atheist, he is smarter than a religious
> > person, so
> > they should support him.
>
> Manning's not an atheist.  I'm an atheist.  Others posting to the
> group are atheists.  But Manning isn't an atheist.
>
> In fact, I've had some rather interesting arguments with Manning about
> his belief in god.
>
> Manning is on record, however, that he thinks your typical theist is
> pretty stupid.  I think, Michael, that you have helped to reinforce
> that opinion of his.
>

Yet another example of your mental illness.
You and manning are the same poster with different nyms and mismatched
headers.
You apparently are either unaware of this, or are deliberately lying,
or both.

>
>
>
>
> > Obviously any benefit said to reside on average with atheists of
> > greater intelligence
> > was lost on him, as we all know he flunked elementary school at least
> > twice, and
> > is mentally deficient, he being held back because it took him 3 years
> > to pass a particular

> > grade level in elementary school, him being really slow ...- Hide quoted text -

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages