IQ vs. Religiosity

[nota bene]

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.

One of my father's friends flunked his med boards twice but went on to have a very successful hometown career as an OB/GYN. He was a journeyman physician, I suppose, but he was a brilliant businessman who went on to own a Ford dealership, nightclubs, and a bank. It's just different skill-sets and acumen.

 

[Marquez]

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".

Why do you think emotional intelligence is an invention? Have you ever noticed a difference between various people's abilities to handle their emotions? I've known people with very high traditional IQs (which seem to measure mathematical, linguistic, and spatial skills primarily) who nevertheless struggle with their emotions and self-understanding. Conversely, I've known some people who aren't particularly "book smart" who navigate their understanding of self and others with ease. Doesn't emotional intelligence make a significant difference in people's lives?

 

[Sweden]

Why do you think emotional intelligence is an invention? Have you ever noticed a difference between various people's abilities to handle their emotions? I've known people with very high traditional IQs (which seem to measure mathematical, linguistic, and spatial skills primarily) who nevertheless struggle with their emotions and self-understanding. Conversely, I've known some people who aren't particularly "book smart" who navigate their understanding of self and others with ease. Doesn't emotional intelligence make a significant difference in people's lives?

I entirely agree Marquez except for one thing: the ability to handle emotions - take anger for example - is not a form of intelligence. It is part of mental stability which takes us into a quite different area.

 

[Marquez]

I entirely agree Marquez except for one thing: the ability to handle emotions - take anger for example - is not a form of intelligence. It is part of mental stability which takes us into a quite different area.

How are you defining intelligence? I think that intelligence might be something like, "the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment" (from Wikipedia). If that definition works, then emotional intelligence might be perceiving information about one's emotional states and applying that knowledge adaptively toward improving one's ability to function and be happy. No?

 

[CrabCake]

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.

IQ is designed to measure a specific set of mental attributes, not all mental attributes.

Common sense is not measured by IQ. Neither are: empathy, memorization, reading comprehension, spatial reasoning, or many other mental characteristics. When people approach IQ results as if they are a total measure of all mental capacities, they are abusing IQ tests.

This is why college testing doesn't use IQ; it uses "knowledge tests" (like the ACT) or "aptitude tests" (like the SAT). Colleges want to know more than just how smart you are, but also how good you are at school related skillsets. They want to know about your: reading comprehension, arithmetic reasoning, etc.

Likewise, the USAF wants to know about your spatial reasoning, which is important for many of the jobs the officer jobs they offer (pilots, satellite based intelligence specialists etc.). Thus when you take their officer test (AFOQT) they place heavy emphasis on spatial reasoning.

The Armed Forces use the ASVAB because that test measures the mental faculties they are interested in.

The point I'm making is that IQ tests are not some sort of panacea that measures all aspects of mental activity. Nor is it meant to be that. If you wanted to know more about specific areas of mental activity, you need other tools.

 

[Sweden]

How are you defining intelligence? I think that intelligence might be something like, "the ability to perceive information, and retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment" (from Wikipedia). If that definition works, then emotional intelligence might be perceiving information about one's emotional states and applying that knowledge adaptively toward improving one's ability to function and be happy. No?

If one defines intelligence broadly enough the ability to walk in straight line can be called something like 'physical progression intelligence'.

The study of, say, endocrinology and how hormones affect emotions which are important in brain activity is facilitated by general intelligence. As is learning how this knowledge might relate to oneself.

IQ is, among other things, the ability to absorb and apply information of all kinds.

 

[Marquez]

IQ is, among other things, the ability to absorb and apply information of all kinds.

Is it possible that emotional intelligence is absorbing information about one's internal states and applying that information to therapeutic methods for self improvement? That would seem to fit your definition of intelligence.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The average IQ in Sierra Leone is 65? I find that pretty hard to believe...

 

[Sweden]

Is it possible that emotional intelligence is absorbing information about one's internal states and applying that information to therapeutic methods for self improvement? That would seem to fit your definition of intelligence.

OK, you have convinced me that you think ei is a useful concept. I hope this post shifts your emotional state towards the 'happy' end of the spectrum.

 

[Sweden]

The average IQ in Sierra Leone is 65? I find that pretty hard to believe...

The average IQ in Sierra Leone is, of course, 100. I doubt if any serious attempt to assess the average world IQ has ever been made.

 

[Celebrity]

I tend to agree.

I/Q performance is largely genetic but also partially related to education and training as well. There might be some really smart poor uneducated kids who simply cannot relate to the test.

Religion involves decades of brainwashing though, and even intelligent people may be unable to combat bad religion, like Islam.

It would take an extremely high I/Q person to be able to discard all brainwashing, including patriotism and nationalism and also religion as well.

Very few people have I/Q's high enough to pull that off.

IQ has been shown to be heavily dependent on cultural learning. The first statement is very telling in that, however much the test is revised, it is only nominally relevant. Don't bring the socioeconomics of present day test subjects into discussion immediately after chalking it up to genetics. That's just cheesy. I think we agree here, but I'm not quite sure where the discussion of brainwashing and genetics will lead.

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.

I DO believe that genetics play the absolute biggest role in IQ and than education plays much less of a part in IQ than genetics. I do accept that childhood nutrition can pay a part in IQ by brain development but still less of an impact than genetics.

This discussion of intellectual development illustrates that measurement of IQ is developmental. Do you think there is a socioeconomic bias? I think the graph in the original post showed a correlation, not a causation.

There are lots of ways to interpret these data and this graph.

You can say that religion and superstition are more confused among the lower I/Q-test performing nations. That's on the far right where I/Q-results seem to falter.

You can also say religiousity is unrelated to I/Q-results because as you see the graph appears to be very flat on the left and in the middle.

What is your own interpretation ??

Or are you waiting for US to interpret for you ??

The point of an IQ test is to measure and interpret an intellectual quality. Incidentally, that relates your question to the cultural bias of human error or cultural barriers. So maybe the purpose of the thread is to show that uneducated people fail IQ tests because religion subdues intellectual learning. I think the test measures intelligence or learning. It's inappropriate to measure learning where learning doesn't exist. So there will be bias when you draw conclusions in that respect. I'm not calling anyone intellectually impoverished, but before we get into the touchy feely bits, let's just remember that specialized education prohibits learning.

 

[Logicman]

People shouldn't confuse IQ / intelligence with godly wisdom. Bill Clinton was smart, but he was a full quart low on godly wisdom, and he got impeached. He turned the White House into his own private bordello, and he got caught. That divided his family and the nation.

Obama, the sweetheart 'genius' of the liberal left, has screwed up badly so many times, it's laughable. He's a serial liar, an elitist egomaniac, and a spiritual dwarf. His pro gay marriage culture is just a pathway down to Hell for unrepentant sinners (note Luke 13:3 and Revelation 21:8). Not smart.

In fact, according to God's Word, all those people represented in the chart above, who have rejected the salvation of Jesus Christ, will wind up in the Lake of Fire.

And that, folks, is not smart at all. There's going to be a lot of high IQ people in Hell.

 

[Marquez]

OK, you have convinced me that you think ei is a useful concept. I hope this post shifts your emotional state towards the 'happy' end of the spectrum.

Okay. But you didn't answer my question.

 

[CrabCake]

Is it possible that emotional intelligence is absorbing information about one's internal states and applying that information to therapeutic methods for self improvement? That would seem to fit your definition of intelligence.

I think that the main problem with the term Emotional Intelligence is the fact that it is being described as a type of intelligence. It isn't a type of intelligence. It's a mental faculty that for many generations we have called "empathy". It simply isn't a type of intelligence according to any definition of intelligence we have ever adhered to. The only reason it is called "Emotional Intelligence" is marketing. It's more provocative and thus more attractive to potential book buyers, lecture attendants, etc. to claim that you've discovered a new kind of intelligence that turns the IQ field upside down than it is to argue that there are mental faculties besides intelligence that are equally important. The latter is a common sense claim that most people wouldn't bat an eye about...but you probably can't fill a lecture hall or sell a million books using that language; the former, on the other hand sounds like a provocative and groundbreaking new idea. Thus marketing turned a common sense argument (mental attributes such as empathy matter as much as IQ), into some kind of attack on intelligence testing (IQ doesn't measure other important kinds of intelligence such as Emotional Intelligence).

Emotional Intelligence is merely a marketing term for Empathy. It's not intelligence.

 

[Marquez]

I think that the main problem with the term Emotional Intelligence is the fact that it is being described as a type of intelligence. It isn't a type of intelligence. It's a mental faculty that for many generations we have called "empathy". It simply isn't a type of intelligence according to any definition of intelligence we have ever adhered to. The only reason it is called "Emotional Intelligence" is marketing. It's more provocative and thus more attractive to potential book buyers, lecture attendants, etc. to claim that you've discovered a new kind of intelligence that turns the IQ field upside down than it is to argue that there are mental faculties besides intelligence that are equally important. The latter is a common sense claim that most people wouldn't bat an eye about...but you probably can't fill a lecture hall or sell a million books using that language; the former, on the other hand sounds like a provocative and groundbreaking new idea. Thus marketing turned a common sense argument (mental attributes such as empathy matter as much as IQ), into some kind of attack on intelligence testing (IQ doesn't measure other important kinds of intelligence such as Emotional Intelligence).

Emotional Intelligence is merely a marketing term for Empathy. It's not intelligence.

I'm sure you're right that EQ has been marketed for profit. So has IQ. But there's some pretty good evidence by people who know their stuff that it goes deeper than that. I think the rationalwiki is helpful on this.

 

[Marquez]

I'm sure you're right that EQ has been marketed for profit. So has IQ. But there's some pretty good evidence by people who know their stuff that it goes deeper than that. I think the rationalwiki is helpful on this.

Whatever it is, it's certainly not just empathy. Developing a cognitive awareness of one's own emotional states (not the emotions of others) is intrapersonal awareness, and not empathy.

 

[Visbek]

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

Gotta say, I don't think that chart really shows much of anything.

IQ stays the same for religiosity from 10% through to 70%.

And of course, there are dozens of factors that will affect average IQ, such as education, nutrition, conflict, poverty levels and so on. Seems to me like it's a spurious correlation.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

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

I read that article. I'm just laughing.

There's nothing serious or worth even repeating from that source.

 

[Howler63]

So...Africans have a low IQ?

Hell Trump's buddy....David Duke could have told us that.


:rofl

 

[CrabCake]

I'm sure you're right that EQ has been marketed for profit. So has IQ. But there's some pretty good evidence by people who know their stuff that it goes deeper than that. I think the rationalwiki is helpful on this.

I'm not sure how reliable that website is. But I checked it out and the very first few sentences is as far as I needed to read. It says exactly what I said:

There is a growing body of evidence that EQ is a valid and useful psychological construct, ironically only when it is not conceptualised as an intelligence but as a constellation of personality traits and coping skills.

(emphasis mine).

 

[Nilly]

Great OP. Whilst we're looking at such enlightening graphs, what's your thoughts on these?

 

[Marquez]

I'm not sure how reliable that website is. But I checked it out and the very first few sentences is as far as I needed to read. It says exactly what I said:

(emphasis mine).

It also says, "EQ research has retreated from claims that EQ reflects an intelligence to claims that it reflects a trait, constellation of personality factors or preferred style of thought." So it appears to be a valid, researchable set of traits, just not a strict kind of intelligence.

 

[BelieveNU]

Great OP. Whilst we're looking at such enlightening graphs, what's your thoughts on these?

My God, we're killin all the bees O.O Quick, stop smoking! #Pot_Kills_Bees

 

[domer76]

G

People shouldn't confuse IQ / intelligence with godly wisdom. Bill Clinton was smart, but he was a full quart low on godly wisdom, and he got impeached. He turned the White House into his own private bordello, and he got caught. That divided his family and the nation.

Obama, the sweetheart 'genius' of the liberal left, has screwed up badly so many times, it's laughable. He's a serial liar, an elitist egomaniac, and a spiritual dwarf. His pro gay marriage culture is just a pathway down to Hell for unrepentant sinners (note Luke 13:3 and Revelation 21:8). Not smart.

In fact, according to God's Word, all those people represented in the chart above, who have rejected the salvation of Jesus Christ, will wind up in the Lake of Fire.

And that, folks, is not smart at all. There's going to be a lot of high IQ people in Hell.

Thanks for the laugh

 

[Logicman]

Thanks for the laugh

That's what people say when they can't address and refute the argument.