|
|
#41 |
|
FFR Player
|
No, it was a sarcastic comment that meant to compare the importance of both threads mentionned by Afrobean.
__________________
Truth lies in loneliness, When hope is long gone by -Blind Guardian, The Soulforged Image removed for size violation. Last edited by Verruckter; 10-20-2007 at 10:45 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: A secluded valley in Utah.
Age: 33
Posts: 136
|
I don't think that it has anything to do with religion. I'm not religious and I have an I.Q. of 96. I look really stupid compared to geniuses with I.Q.'s of 140, honestly. Yet do I have religion? Not really. Atheists can be dumb, too. So why am I posting in CT...? >.>
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] The world has gone crazy and so have I. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Anyway, thread is stupid, study has been debunked, let's move on, etc.
__________________
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 | |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
Most test batteries aren't even capable of scores over 130-140. At least for adults. If you were tested under the age of 16 then the scale can go up to infinity, technically, and it's not the same. Michael Keanary has a 'childhood' ratio IQ of 330. But anyway, 140 is 99.6th percentile for adults, and 130 is the Mensa cutoff. Tests that can go over 140 include WAIS, Binet, Ravens APM, some Catell scales and a few others, and none of them have ceilings over 160. 190 is ridiculous... one in a billion, and there are only a few people on the planet with an IQ that high. For the record, since there are currently no psychometrically valid tests capable of going over 166, any scores higher than that are extrapolations (ex Chris Langan). I like to think of IQ as analogous to pc specs. Just because you're running a smooth ride doesn't mean you have any good hardware on it or that you utilize it. Anyway, these results aren't surprising. The white-black gap in IQ has been known for a long time. Since the early 1900s. As an FYI, asians average higher than whites. Well educated people tend to have higher IQ's...and there are less religous people in academia than in the general public. People tend to leave these types of faith based systems when they become more knowledgable. As for the causes of this, some people have already pointed out a couple. IQ= genes + environment. From there it's pretty obvious.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 10-21-2007 at 06:33 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
FFR Hall of Fame
|
Why are you so obsessed with IQ; you are intense about gauging your pattern recognition skills, man.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 | |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
I am taking psychometrics and statistics though. I like stats. Anyway uh, since you mentioned it, IQ tests are more than just pattern recognition skills. You might be thinking about Ravens APM or might have been generalizing, but I'd assume you took the Wechsler battery for children when you talked about formal testing. It has a lot of crystallized intelligence (application of knowledge) testing on it, as do most tests. A few tests only test fluid intelligence (you can call it pattern recognition, it's just problem solving independent of previous knowledge), and you can kind of get away with it as fluid reasoning is highly predictive of your knowledge base and working memory (in young adults anyway).
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 10-26-2007 at 05:48 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2005
Location: queens, new york
Age: 34
Posts: 47
|
In my opinion, I don't think it's good to go off labeling people just because they are religious or not. That sounds dumb to me. Everyone is their own individual and should be judged as just that.
Personally, I am religious I was raised religiously, but I don't follow everything by the book. I disagree with certain things. I like to study different religions on my own time. I keep an open mind about anything because everything is a possibility unless you can 100% prove it. If you can't prove that God exists or doesn't exist then I don't think it's right to label people as less intelligent. A study is a study, it is a theory but it is not proven. This test sounds a bit biased to me for the fact that right off the bat they went about labeling people as "smart". As someone mentioned previously knowledge and intelligence are different and everyone has different experiences in life which would ultimately alter your knowledge. Anyhow back to my original point, I like to study other religions and see what they have to say. I listen to what science also has to offer, BUT! the first rule of science is that no miracles are allowed. So scientists have to go about proving things with hardcore fact. I understand science has proven a lot but the one thing science has yet to prove is how we all got here and how the universe functions as a whole and what is it's purpose. With religion that gives more of an explanation of what happen and how we all got here. One thing I really do find interesting throughout my studies is that all over the world no matter what religion, one thing is in common with people who do believe in a higher power. That thing is that all the people of the world have very similar creation stories (think: adam and eve) now ask yourself how can that be possible that in a time of no boats, airplanes, transportation, can all these people have similar ideas about how the world started? Even more so, how could everyone get the same idea about the mythological creature such as the dragon to be included into these stories? All over the world they describe this creature with wings, fire breathing and of the dark side. There is also one other thing all these stories have in common and that is the creation of the earth and universe and how that came to be. I can name over like 20+ religions that have these similar types of stories. (Remember these stories were all created before any modern day transportation, so there was no way of knowing of what someone in africa and someone in the americas was thinking) If you can explain that and how we all came to be, scientifically, you win ![]() this site has a lot of different creation stories- they mostly talk about the creation of the earth. Check it out if you are interested http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us |
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 8,023
|
This is just another example of the classic correlation vs. causation argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#49 | ||||||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
They said "Given people's answers, and IQs, this is the result" If you grant that those were the answers, and those were the IQs, then you grant the results. Quote:
Quote:
That doesn't make religious ideas somehow more likely to be true just because many peoples have appealed to the supernatural to explain creation. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
They said simply "We asked these questions, got these results from this IQ of people, and here are the conclusions." I'm not sure they said "Therefore, all religious people are less intelligent than all non-religious people" or even "this implies that religious people have low IQs" Those were certainly implications you could take from the results, but the results simply said "From the sample, there was a trend towards religious thought from the less intelligent, and a trend towards non-religious thought from the more intelligent" |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: california
Posts: 248
|
whatever happened to that stereotype where asians are for some reason proportionately smarter?
by the way i am not religious, nor do i deny it in full. agnostic is the way to go. i don't know why more people aren't agnostic... |
|
|
|
|
|
#51 | |||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Quote:
~Tsugomaru
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by tsugomaru; 10-27-2007 at 04:23 AM.. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#52 | |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
Quote:
On that same note, the same goes for schooling and performance there. You talk about ones intelligence quite strongly in the context of how educated you are, but more often than not higher education (college and beyond) has absolutely no effect on an individuals intelligence. IQ and school achievement are only mildly correlated (less than r=0.5). At this point you're gaining knowledge, not aptitude. If anything you were getting closer to the point near the end. The more important thing that has shown to be strongly correlate with the child's IQ is upbringing and exposure during the first few years of life, before going to school. The key is really an optimal environment for the child to develop in, which explains the IQ gap fairly well...however, you don't need to have a high income to bring a child up properly. You just need to be a responsible, loving and willing parent...but at the same time, you can't breed geniuses. Genes and the environment interact together to make you who you are. It's never just one or the other. I should make clear that I'm not saying race is influences IQ. It probably does, to a degree, but it shouldn't matter statistically. Assuming race differences exist (they do, but barely), they are diluted by the fact that there is often more variance between individuals of the same race than across races genetically. It's fairly evident that the IQ gap between races is caused by much more than genetics...though trying to narrow it down to a single environmental factor certainly doesn't achieve anything.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 10-27-2007 at 09:54 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Rubix, if you don't care enough to support what you say, then you ought not to post at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#54 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Reach, I agree with you. The post I wrote was quoted from a different thread and my response was tailored specifically to address the issue I did.
I was trying to make a point that stereotypes aren't the auto-decider of who's "smarter"; a lot of it has to do with the environment they grew up in. I'm also not trying to say that school automatically makes you "smart", it doesn't. ~Tsugomaru
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
<<Insert Title Here>>
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Regina, SK, Canada
Age: 31
Posts: 1,436
|
Mod Edit: This has been a pretty calm and rational discussion so far, and this remark was needlessly dismissive and inflammatory.
Last edited by devonin; 10-28-2007 at 12:39 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#56 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: california
Posts: 248
|
Quote:
i personally think the reason there is the asian stereotype of them being smarter is because of their customs and traditions. most asian people value education tremendously, whereas some other people who hold other cultures and traditional values at a lower standard, thus resulting in education not being as important as other things in life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 | |||||||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2005
Location: queens, new york
Age: 34
Posts: 47
|
Quote:
Quote:
Can you clarify what exactly this means- "We asked all kinds of people questions about all kinds of things, and the majority of people citing religious beliefs had lower IQs than the majority of people citing non-religious beliefs."Would you know if these people citing religious beliefs as a response are doing it to all kinds of questions or only to the religious questions? Quote:
I think that there are different types of intelligence levels and that simply cannot confine people to one standard of intelligence (this has long been a debate amongst what is the standard for measuring intelligence). For example there is emotional intelligence, artistic intelligence, musical intelligence, logic intelligence. There are all these different types of categories, that it isn't fair to say if one person has emotional intelligence is smarter than a person who is more musically intelligent. Maybe the test was flawed in the way that it only had a certain type of questions that applied to only one type of these categories. I don't think it is possible to have an overall method to indicate and measure intelligence because everyone is born and raised in a different environment and therefore exposed to different things that is needed for survival in their environment. If you were to take a person who graduated with a PHD in writing and compare them to a tribal person from Africa, clearly in our society the person with the PHD would be considered far more intelligent. Now take the same 2 people and put them in Africa to survive. The tribal guy is going to be intelligent in the way that he will know his botany, how to farm, build a house, how to travel using the sun and moon and different types of knowledge than this person with a PHD in writing has. (Just for a thought what if you gave this PHD guy an intelligence, test but with the Africa tribal guys society standards) Therefore you can't compare the two and simply say that this guy with a PHD is smarter. However, I am assuming that this test was taken within people of our society, but you also have to consider that maybe some of them were immigrants from other countries and also different parts of the U.S.A have different mentalities on certain things. My parents are from a foreign country and they know things that I never could have learned in college, simply because of the different societies we were raised in. I don't think that any society is superior or inferior to one another, it's just different exposures to different things. Quote:
Quote:
Code:
Origin of creation myth higher power adam and eve story- days of creation Zulu Unkulunkulu no yes Bantu tribe Bumba Yoko Lima yes Nigeria Abasi Yes- no names no Southern Nigeria Obassi Osaw yes- no names yes Ainu Kamui Aoina and Ainu yes Apache Creator yes yes Australian Aboriginal no Ungambikula yes Aztec Coatlique Coyolxauhqui no Chelan Creator yes- no names no Quote:
Quote:
In conclusion, if it's a study based on trend alone, this test is probably not the most accurate thing. This is the point I am trying to make with the information above. I am not completely disagreeing/ agreeing I am just suggesting things that could be possible. Last edited by devonin; 11-2-2007 at 01:48 AM.. Reason: Oh god, the quote tags! |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#58 | |||||||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
A) We asked many people questions B) We measured the IQ of those same people C) The people who answered the questions in a way that suggested they were religious corresponded generally to the people with low IQs D) The people who answered the questions in a way that suggested they were not religious corresponded generally to the people with high IQs E) Therefore, we draw the inductive conclusion from this, that religious people are apt to be less intelligent than non-religious people or F) We draw the inductive conclusion that less intelligent people are apt to be more religious than more intelligent people Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#59 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2005
Location: queens, new york
Age: 34
Posts: 47
|
Quote:
After a while I just begin to sit there and be like well you have all these studies but how true can they all possibly be? Sometimes those science people are wrong, sometimes they are right. I just don't like to immediately believe everything I hear without analyzing it myself. Last edited by devonin; 11-4-2007 at 09:42 PM.. Reason: Quote tags again |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
The point of these studies is that the average single person on their own simply lacks the ability to conduct that analysis themselves. You don't have the ability to go out and poll a suitable geographic and demographic cross-section of the nation yourself, and possibly lack the education and training in statistical analysis to draw the same kinds of conclusion from the data.
When you're told that a study indicates something, if the organization doing the study is worth the name, they've accounted for potential biases in results, and the margin of error should be clearly stated. Once again, while it is up to the individual viewing the results to decide how important these results are to their life, unless there is a really major bias hidden in the parameters, I suspect very few of the studies draw outright -wrong- conclusions from the data. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|