• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

IQ vs. Religiosity

You want a big picture: if you believe that religion impacts IQ...you didn't have much IQ to begin with. You also probably think IQ measures something important, rather than how one functions and relates to the world.

It isn't so much that religion impacts IQ, it's that IQ impacts religion. The higher IQ that you have, the less likely it is that you will be religious. This has been known forever and is borne out in dozens of studies dating back nearly a century.
 
No I don't think that religion impacts IQ. I do think that IQ impacts a persons capability to understand and dismiss bad religion though, ie islam.

It isn't bad religion, it's all religion.
 
Judging by the massive amount of nations that are below average intelligence, I can only draw three possible conclusions from this graph.

A) the majority of the human species is mildly retarded.

B) the IQ tests employed by the people who made this graph were inaccurate.

C) the graph is made up.

Regardless of which theory is right, the graph is a crock of ****.
 
Judging by the massive amount of nations that are below average intelligence, I can only draw three possible conclusions from this graph.

A) the majority of the human species is mildly retarded.

B) the IQ tests employed by the people who made this graph were inaccurate.

C) the graph is made up.

Regardless of which theory is right, the graph is a crock of ****.

It's evident that the graph was made by a guy in Singapore.
 
The point is that IQ does not measure one's intelligence. Especially given that there are multiple kinds of intelligences. It also doesn't determine who can function well. In short...IQ is a joke measurement.

https://aeon.co/opinions/how-clever-is-it-to-dismiss-iq-tests

In a nutshell, Stuart Ritchie (University of Edinburgh), demonstrates in this article that, although it is fashionable for intelligent people to disavow IQ in order to sound clever these days, such individuals are grossly misinformed on the topic and mistakenly disavowing solid science. IQ tests have been validated by decades of scientific testing that have proven them to be among the most reliable instruments in all of psychology. In fact studies show that IQ tests excel at predicting: how well people will do in school, how well they will do in their occupation, how high their income will be, how healthy physically and emotionally they will be, and even how long they will live. Perhaps more compellingly, at least for those who need something solid to measure in order to convince themselves, you can predict the size of someone's brain given only their IQ.

So, yes, IQ is a joke measurement. But only in as much as joke measurements are capable of predicting: performance in school and the workforce, income capacity, health and well being, and the size of your brain.

As for this chart, am I the only one who noticed that the origin of the x axis is 10% rather than 0%? This shifts our perception of the results considerably since our brains expect the 50% mark to be in the center, not over to the left.
 
Last edited:
619.jpg


https://philebersole.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/religion-and-iq-country-comparisons/

Without even going into the question about validity of the very concept of "country IQ": Take this graph and cut off the third world countries with cultures way too different for sensible IQ comparisons - i.e. draw a line approximately on the level "Uzbekistan to Brazil", and erase everything below. Now you have no correlation whatsoever: super-religious Poland is just as "smart" as atheistic Sweden.
 
Science proves Anglicans smartest

The Guardian Friday 19 December 2008

A large-scale analysis of the religious allegiance and measured IQ of a representative sample of 3,742 American adolescents found a clear trend: the more fundamentalist denominations had the more stupid believers, so that the bottom four places were occupied, from the bottom, by Pentecostalists, Baptists, Holiness churches and "Personal Philosophy", which I presume means a new-age-ish syncretism, while the top four places, again in ascending order, were taken by agnostics, atheists, Jews, and Episcopalians (Anglicans). So, atheists are smarter than agnostics, Jews are smarter than atheists, and Anglicans the smartest of the lot.
The tricky relation between religion and IQ | Opinion | The Guardian
 
Any perceived negative correlation between IQ and religiosity has a lot more to do with culture than the nature of religious devotion itself. In a lot of the modern world (often due to the influence of Western 'Enlightenment'-derived thought in Academia, and the ever-increasing pervasiveness of various forms of 'Cultural Marxism'), religious devotion has come to be perceived as being "ignorant," "old fashioned," and "low class." This has rendered it unfashionable, which tends to drive the young and trendy away from it in droves.

However, this was not always the case. In Medieval Europe, and other cultures where religious devotion has been perceived as being a positive thing, religion has actually tended to attract many of the "best and brightest" a given society has to offer.

Even today, in countries where religions like Christianity are fairly new arrivals, and therefore not subject to cultural stigma, the young and intelligent tend to actually flock towards religion. South Korea, for example, is presently seeing an explosion of Christianity among its young, urban, professional classes.
 
If the average IQ of the "smart" countries is only peaking at 105, I now understand why the world is in the shape it's in...

:lamo
 
If the average IQ of the "smart" countries is only peaking at 105, I now understand why the world is in the shape it's in...

:lamo

You do know what "average" means, right? And you are aware that, by definition, an IQ of 100 is average, right? So those countries average above the norm.
 
You do know what "average" means, right? And you are aware that, by definition, an IQ of 100 is average, right? So those countries average above the norm.

Oh you poor thing...:giggle1:
 
Yeah, I know what IQ is. Knowledge is such a difficult thing, isn't it? :roll:

Never found that to be the case, but I'm not judging...
 
The smartest person I ever knew hid his religious beliefs and his knowledge. I asked him why he did it and he said, because showing off is stupid.
 
Oh you poor thing...:giggle1:

That's literally true. 100 is the IQ average. That;s what it means- if your IQ is 100, half the people in the world are smarte than you and half are dumber.
Maybe, half know how IQ works and...
 
Is it my imagination or do others find that the standard model for measuring IQ is possibly not accurate for testing overall general knowledge and problem solving skills? I spent many years around physicians, who have some of the most difficult schooling and found most of them didn't have a lick of sense, especially on how to run a business. A good memory or abilities in a few subjects, like math or science don't instantly qualify someone as having wisdom, common sense or street smarts.
 
The point is that IQ does not measure one's intelligence. Especially given that there are multiple kinds of intelligences. It also doesn't determine who can function well. In short...IQ is a joke measurement.

The 'multiple intellegences' like 'emotional intelligence' are inventions to comfort the unintelligent. "Never mind you are a bit dim, you are really emotionally intelligent because you watch a lot of weepy soaps".
 
You’re just throwing out raw information, with no commentary or opinion of your own and so nothing to guide or inspire constructive discussion. There’s actually a forum rule about this so maybe you should consider reviewing them.

You don’t even seem to be making any significant constructive replies on your own threads (or many others for that matter). As a whole, that behaviour can lead people to suspect that you have no interest in any real debate, just stirring up arguments and resentment. Even if that isn’t your intention, it’s how it comes across.

I prefer 'raw information' aka 'facts' to manipulated, twisted, distorted, spun 'information'. Aka disinformation.
 
That's literally true. 100 is the IQ average. That;s what it means- if your IQ is 100, half the people in the world are smarte than you and half are dumber.
Maybe, half know how IQ works and...

It escaped you too?
 
The IQ lower in Africa crap is just that...crap.

It's nothing but a guess from a bunch of moronic and/or racist sources.

If you do not take someone's IQ, then you cannot know what their IQ is. And I guaranfriginteeyou that whomever came up with the moronic suggestion that African IQ's are HUGELY lower then almost everyone else's did not take even 2% of Africans IQ.

I will say again...if a person has not taken an IQ test, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what their IQ is.

And only a scientist with the integrity of an axe murderer would suggest otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom