Intelligence, Religion and Polyamour

[tenni]

In new research bound to irk conservative geniuses, people with high IQs are deemed more likely to be liberal, monogamous non-believers than those who are less intelligent.
Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist from the London School of Economics and Political Science, says it makes sense biologically.

In an article for Social Psychology Quarterly, Kanazawa lays out facts based on U.S. data to support his theory. According to that research, young adults who identify as "not at all religious" had an average IQ of 103 as teens, while those who identified as "very religious" had an average IQ of 97.

Similarly, young adults who called themselves "very liberal" had an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identified themselves as "very conservative" had average IQs of 95.

Kanazawa believes there are evolutionary reasons behind this.

Ten thousand years ago, when humans were hunter-gatherers, we mated, tended to our kin and fled when danger was in the air – activities that did not require much intelligence.

Kanazawa says humans were thus biologically designed to be conservative and put a high value on family.

"What is conservative in the U.S. – caring about your family and your friends and your kin – is sort of evolutionarily familiar," Kanazawa says.

"We are designed to care only about people we associate with."

Among our ancestors, men – though not women – were polygynous, having more than one sexual partner.

And the U.S. data show a relationship between male adolescent intelligence and how much, as adults, they came to value sexual exclusivity. The more intelligent the male respondents were, the more they believed in monogamy.

It was also natural for hunter-gatherers to seek intentions behind natural phenomena, leading to religious belief, Kanazawa says.

The ability to think and reason, he says, evolved to deal with occasional but serious problems such as fires caused by lightning strikes, flash floods or severe droughts that threatened starvation. He terms these phenomena as evolutionarily novel.

As time passed, more of the elements of our lives fell into the "evolutionarily novel" category, Kanazawa says. People who are more intelligent, he argues, are better able to consider these novel elements and decide, for example, that liberalism, atheism or monogamy are things they want to subscribe to.

"Liberalism, caring about millions of total strangers and giving up money to make sure that those strangers will do well, is evolutionarily novel," Kanazawa says. In other words, the ability to respond to any element that is evolutionarily novel, whether it's caring about earthquake victims in Haiti or accepting the theories of Darwin, is tied to intelligence.

Does this model help in understanding Canada's liberal-conservative divide? John English, editor of the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, says that in the last decade or so, university-educated people have tended to be politically liberal.

But as far as religion goes, our experience differs.

"In the States, you have to be religious to be a politician, but the founding fathers weren't all that religious and certainly you can find many in the '50s and '60s who weren't that religious," he says. "But now it's expected....Those are the formalities."

Sir Wilfrid Laurier, a Liberal, was agnostic but never said so, English says.
"He would regularly say, 'I'm Roman Catholic....' He was not a believer but he realized he couldn't say that publicly."
Neither, English says, could Lester B. Pearson, a brilliant (and notably monogamous) Liberal who did not practise religion.

Maryanne Fisher, a professor in the department of psychology at St. Mary's University in Halifax, says Kanazawa's new theory is provocative, but she has her doubts. "I could see how smart people might be more apt to wanting to push boundaries but, at the same time," she says, "I can easily think of many intelligent people I've met who would be exceptions to this rule."

Kanazawa says future research will explore whether intelligent people are more likely to buy into other evolutionarily novel values, like vegetarianism, feminism, pacifism and environmentalism.

Meanwhile, he expects the average intelligence of all western populations to decline slightly in the 21st century, because more intelligent people tend to have fewer offspring. Interestingly, Kanazawa describes himself as a married atheist libertarian with a strong distaste for liberals. But, as a scientist, he says he is bound to report the facts.

[FredinSJ]

Tenni,
Your posting matches my experience. I know many bright people who are polyamourous, and the present Sexual MOOD in America is happily, improving. I hope you & others will post more on this topic. I'll post more data soon.

Laugh today, like the Eskimos, Intuit Native Americans....
Their custom to welcome overnight guests, is -- "Guest Laughs With the Hostess, All Night."
(M or F, no matter)

FredinSJ

[darkeyes]

So thats wy me has brain size of a planet!!!;):bigrin:

[extrantro]

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

--John Stuart Mill 1806-1873

[niftyshellshock]

I've seen this drivel before, no offense to the OP.
It seems a number of nonbelievers have this chip on the shoulder against believers because of who they are. Just be yourself, guys. No one's out to get you.

[Hephaestion]

From Pasa.
"...This "study" and it's conclusions are full of crap..."

Unfortunately, the above statement rings true.

.

[tenni]

Pasa
Thanks for responding.

Why do you write that his science is faulty? Perhaps, you do not accept pyschology as a science? It is. The measurement devices differ from some traditional "pure" sciences. Are you able to provide a link to this study or where his research methods are proven faulty for this study?

From what I read in this report, liberal and conservative are not being used to refer to anything political nor the use of public money.

I will agree that standard group IQ tests have been proven to have weaknesses and cultural bias. The article states that it is the adolescent IQ but it doesn't state how the adolescent's IQ was determined. Evaluating language & cognitive abilities is the most common tool to determine intelligence but there are at least five intelligences according to some beliefs. Other tests evaluate reasoning and abstract thinking abilities. They are combined to come up with an IQ that is quite different from what you may have experienced in a school setting. These tests are administered one on one and not in a group setting. It may be a bit premature to state that the IQ is invalid. The researcher seems to be stating that adolescent IQ is an indicator as to how a person perceives the world in adulthood as far as religion and conservative or liberal attitudes. I am inclined to think that he needs further studies and clarification of other factors that may affect an adult's religious and conservative/liberal attitudes. As the end of the article points out that different countries may result in different results. Individuals may also vary and it is always possible to find an intelligent, religious person who believes in taking risks and uses money to help strangers. I can think of the Dali Lhama and Mother Teressa but I don't think that we have their adolescent IQ...:tong:

I find some of your statements unclear. When you refer to "sets them apart as free thinkers as a way to show superiority." A free thinker (or liberal thinker?) is not equivalent to showing superiority? Explain the connection between "Feeling superior" and "free thinking" (pushing boundaries, being liberal)? I don't see the two connected in this study or any that I can recall?

As far as being conservative (non risk taker) being the societal norm, I think that you just need to look around you. The majority of people settle down after their 20's and seek a life that is conservative lifestyle. They marry. They have children. They are cautious about how they use money. They are inclined to care more for their immediate family and close friends than people that they don't even know. etc. With regard to your link to the article about charitable donations and attitudes, it doesn't state which charity that they are giving to. It may be their church. It may be agencies to evangelize third world countries.

Thankfully, I can still depend on you to add some interesting thoughts...now that darkeyes has retired from debate..:bigrin: I wonder if Falcon will comment?

[Long Duck Dong]

I have a list of questions

non believer in what ?? religion / faith / paranormal / spirituality ??????
is the term atheist being used correctly or incorrectly....
what manner of IQ test was used and what was the subject range...
what was the range of people tested ( age, race, country, gender and number of people tested )
does the study state the nature of free thinking.... and what free thinking encompasses

now religion and faith are both mutable in that they can be indoctrined or a person can move towards or away from them depend on personal and soceity stimuli,
actions and reactions in regards to religion and faith can provoke a less than truthful answer with questions and also interpretation of religion and faith can taint the clarity of a answer in terms of stating belief

as for non risk taker etc, even being conservative is a risk.... you can save your money, take out a mortgage and have a house... but suddenly, your employment is terminated, you divorce, you lose everything
even the safest of * normal * behievour is a risk,.... its our understanding of a risk, that can define the statement for us personally....

to me a risk taker is any person that acts outside of a totally secure zone... the measure I use, is accidental and deliberate risk taker
accidental is something like going to the shop in the car......
deliberate is jumping out of a aircraft and dropping to 800 feet before opening the chute or base jumping.....

as for intelligence, I do not measure it in what a person writes or how they write... but how much time they spend not writing and talking, but just thinking about what they could do or say and realize there is no need to do or say it

[FalconAngel]

Well, here we go.

There will always be those Christians (right wing/Dominion, mostly) that will argue that the science is wrong or in error (creationists come to mind), but has anyone noticed that when you look at conservatives, they are predominantly Christian and the ultra-conservatives almost entirely consist of Dominion Christians?

These are folks that, for the largest part, will believe whatever they are told by their leaders; particularly their religious leaders.
Leaders who do not encourage dissenting opinions, leaders who discourage close scrutiny of the "facts" that they state, leaders who oppose scientific advancement beyond what their particular edit version of Biblical doctrine says. Leaders that know how to make lies sound true through deception, false dichotomies, logical fallacies, slippery slope arguments, extreme examples and miss-directive arguments.

Of course, these folks are going to complain. It hurts the ego, which is stronger than facts for these folks.
Did anyone of the naysayers notice that the study found that there is room for exceptions to the rule?
Probably not, because religious ego and religious doctrine got in the way.
It allows them to cry foul and play the victim with what feels like a clear conscience. That is all an illusion, though.

Fact is that Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions are not what they are cracked up to be.

Don't blame the messenger, blame your own leaders who have used your religion to gain power. They are the ones trying to dumb down society.

The smarter the person, the harder it is to pass doctrine off on them. Particularly when that doctrine makes little to no sense. Monotheism, as a whole is that way and is solely responsible for most of the violence on the planet; past and present.

Jews against non-Jews, Christians against Jews, Christians against Muslims, Christians against protestant Christians, different Protestant sects against each other, Muslims against all other religions.......need we go through the details of more that 3000 years of monotheist religion based violence?

In the past 2000 years, when "the church" has been proven wrong by science (Galileo, Cupernicus, Darwin, et al), the response has always been something to the effect of "the science is faulty". Yet science has stood the test of time, being flexible enough to accept new data when monotheism is rigid and unwavering, no matter how often it is proven wrong.

I am not saying that your religion is bad. It is your doctrine and leaders that are bad.


Not liking the results found will not change the facts.
The people were tested using standard IQ testing processes, with methods that require repeatable and verifiable methods. the results go before peer review for others in the field, using the same methods double-check the results of their tests and match them against the original findings. That is how science and the scientific process works.

If you don't like what has been found out, then change yourselves, not the tests.

If I sound harsh, then too bad.
You have a right to believe and practice your religion, but when something comes along to hurt Judeo-Christian-Islamic egos they all cry foul.

And that gets damned annoying after a very short while.
Man up and cope with it or man up and change the flaws.
It takes more than forgiveness to get into "heaven": It takes personal growth; something that is not happening when all one does is complain about things that one refuses to change in themselves. Or, as in this case, the flaws created by more than 1500 years of critically flawed leaders creating critically flawed doctrine with not enough practice of core principles for personal growth.

Who is worse; the liar that leads or the fools that blindly follow the liar?

[tenni]

Pasa

I find that he states Liberalism, caring about millions of total strangers and giving up money to make sure that those strangers will do well. It doesn't state "public money" though.

In this study, he uses self identification of the adults as to whether they perceive themselves as conservative or liberal. He didn't evaluate them based upon his own definition.

I did a little googling on him and yes he is rather controversial. He does reference some taboo concepts such as gender and race. I found no statement to support your statement about starting with a conclusion and finding facts to support the conclusion. I think though that we might have previously discussed "theory" before.

What I find less clear is exactly what does he mean that liberals tend to be monogomous? The more intelligent that a person is the more inclined that they are to be monogomous. Maybe, I am not getting that aspect.

He is however a published evolutionary psychologist. As far as I could find, his peers criticized some aspects of his procedure but supported his findings in a different study. I found nothing to support your thesis that "bad science, even worse stats, and couldn't derive statistically relevant data if God Himself used the methodolgy described." If that is just an opinion without evidence to support your comment, ok.

[AdamKadmon43]

I've seen this drivel before, no offense to the OP.
It seems a number of nonbelievers have this chip on the shoulder against believers because of who they are. Just be yourself, guys. No one's out to get you.

Oh yes they are out to get you ..... and they most assuredly will if they ever get the political power to do so.

[niftyshellshock]

hurra for Pasadena!

[tenni]

Pasa
I am inclined at the moment to agree with you that any specific religion is not the point. His research does seem to be US based though. The variables get a little rambling.

I'm not surprised that evolutionary biologists would put down a evolutionary psychologists. They use different methodology than pyschologists or sociologists. I have a psychology background as well as an art background. I looked into this relatively new field. The methodology seems variable and still evolving. That may be another reason why your friends reject it or him. "Evolutionary psychologists have used many different methods, from experimental manipulation of human behaviour in the laboratory to observation of indigenous peoples and analysis of archaeological data. All these methods may be called analytic, in the sense that they collect data about already-existing systems and then analyse them." That seems to have an anthropological approach mixed in with other methodologies.

I've rethought what he wrote about monogomy. This is my perspective :bigrin: He states that the more intelligent the male is the more inclined he is to be monogomous because polyamour is a more early evolutionary norm for men (not women). He doesn't make a link that the less intelligent are polyamour and conservative though. The assumption may be there for those who wish to read it that way. This might contradict how we generally perceive conservative males (not political conservative). I would expect a conservative man not to push the edge of the social norm. That social norm is to present yourself as monogomyst. However, I have found reports that state that the contemporary North American man is prone to not be monogomous (60% have affairs sometime during their marriage). Interesting. That may suggest that if you combine the two concepts you may get an interesting thought or two.:)

It might be helpful to read the actual journal article but I don't want to pay for the copy...lol I did read some of his reported thesis. They are not socially polite or acceptable in some respects. I will google what you wrote. I'm just thinking on my feet and open to discussion. I like to push my wonky mind...lol

I've heard of the SAT test but I'm not familiar with it. I suspect that you are correct that it may have a racial and cultural bias. That is not they type of intelligence testing that I'm referring to. I forget the particular names of the tests as it has been a few years since I was involved. Psychomotrists had to be qualified and trained for these Intelligence tests. Some were heavily language based as I wrote but there was an attempt to evaluate other factors of intelligence. These tests were expensive and may or may not be the tests that were used in adolescence.

[tenni]

Pasa
I think that it is a very new field of study. It will have to fight for credibility just as other fields have. As to whether it is related to psychology, he is published in a social psychology journal. Social psychology methodolgy is different from behavioural psychology methodology in some ways.

It seems that this is the infancy of evolutionary psychology. It is like stating that psychology is Freudian or Jungian. Neither have a significant role in contemporary pyschological fields. Both were essential to the development of some fields of psychology though. Evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology seem to be at odds with each other. Darwin was ridiculed and still is by some.

[FalconAngel]

I don't like the tests. Which means that no matter what was 'found out' I'm not going to like. Not because of their content, but because of the way they were derived. So, I will indeed change the tests, as they are currently unfit for producing relevant data. "That's the scientific process."


As long as the method is impartial, repeatable and derives the same results without major/critical variation, then the methods are sound.

So what if he is controversial. So was the theory (scientific) that the Earth revolved around the sun. Controversial does not make it wrong.

So what IQ tests would you use? One written to favor Christians over others? That would be a piss poor measurement method. Right up there with throwing a witch in the river to see if they float.

For any research, whether controversial or not, when testing IQ, he would still have to use one of the commonly used standard IQ tests if he expected to even get his work noticed by the scientific community.

Agree or not?

So if you don't like the tests, then would you change those tests to better suit your opinion?

Wait.

That won't work.

Tests must be empirical and acceptably impartial in design and method of measurement in order to be scientific. Even controversially scientific.

This is always the problem with the way that religious groups, like Dominion Christians always see science. "If it doesn't agree with Scripture, then it must be wrong, so just change the conditions of the test."

That's the reason that religion-based "sciences" such as Intelligent Design, Creationism and Young Earth Creationism (really all one in the same) are all such jokes to the REAL scientific community.

The point is that every time someone comes up with something that puts your religion in a bad light, you folks cry foul.

How about just addressing the potential problem honestly and with the idea that your religion's ego could be wrong.
Dominion Christians, more than any other Christian group, has this definite history of behaving as if they were the only one's that mattered and that is in addition to their insistence that they do not have a need for introspection and reflection, as if they were perfect. Someone shows them for the humans that they are and all of a sudden, the evidence/research is automatically wrong.

Never asking yourself "could it be right? Perhaps we need to look at that a little more deeply."

The reaction of Christians to this research shows that there is some solid basis to it. Think then act. Don't just react from ego.

[FalconAngel]

When you can reply to anything I've said without using the word Christian as an attack, then I will consider responding to your points. Until such time, don't expect more than this sort of reply. My faith has nothing to do with this discussion.

Pasa

When you can stop seeing anything that I write anything about Christians as anything but an attack, then you will be ready to have this discussion.

The "attacks" as you have put it, are on the behavior of "Dominion Christians", so unless you are amongst those Christians, then it hasn't been about your religion.

However I have attacked the corrupt leadership and those that blindly follow.

Are you one of those? If not then you need to stop being oversensitive about it.

Now, considering the subject, religion is a key component. Remove that component and this discussion would not be happening.

Faith is belief in the absence of fact. Ignorance is belief in contradiction of facts. Think hard on that.

[TwylaTwobits]

Okay so someone comes up with facts that he twists to support his own thesis, a hypothesis that intelligent people are more likely to be monogamous and non believers....

So we who believe, despite our intelligence apparently are loose, morally?

Really, you can't base anything around intelligence as the smartest person in the world can be dumb as a rock when it comes to relationships and the dumbest person can be the one that always knows exactly what to say to maintain a relationship.

Religion...hah. Religion can be interpreted in so many ways that are not easily defined or explained or charted or even agreed upon among different divisions of the same faith. Some religions have polygamy as a part of their religion, others hold with one spouse til death do you part.


So this guy can publish all the studies he wants, I'll continue hanging with my friends, the above average intelligent wonderful people who I can converse with openly about my faith and my stance on monogamy.

[void()]

"I'm going to apply a liberal spot of intellect and a pinch of faith in hope for a better tomorrow, and not really bother getting entwined with the political aspects of this thread. If that amounts to me having diarrhea in someone else' cheerios, so be it. Use a strainer."

This reads like a script, yet again. Come on get off it.

[tenni]

Twyla
I think that you, as female, are not part of one of his hypothesis. He stated that it was men who were evolutionary poly people. The article that I read referred to the point that women were monogomous (evolutionary). His comparison is a control group in the sense that the control was the male gender regarding polyamour. He is stating that young men who scored higher IQ as adolescents tend to believe in monogomy. I'd add that belief is one thing while actually remaining monogomous may be another point. These are young men and middle age men may change their attitude. He didn't state that they were monogomous either but that they believed in monogomy.

According to the article that I read, his other statements may not be gender based but again I would want to read the actual Journal article since these theories seem controversial. Those statements are:
a/ young adults who called themselves "very liberal" had a higher adolescent IQ
b/those who identified themselves as "very conservative" had a lower adolescent IQ

I'd also state that the difference in IQ was not that great. In fact, both fall under the possible norm for average. Superior IQ's are usually referred to as IQ over 130 with average ranging between 95-110. In today's society, most intellectually successful people tend to be over 115 IQ. (I'm open to a lot of criticism with this statement but hopefully you get the jist of the idea). Frequently, people with low average IQ (90-100) experience difficulty graduating from high school and especially in a university bound stream. I wonder if the difference was statistically significant for "religious/non religious" and conservative/liberal labels? Again, reading the actual study may help but none of us have read it.

I would also add that Pasa's statement about IQ changing is a relatively new hypothesis(less than 30 years old?). There has been some evidence but it is still a controversial position. Strangely enough Pasa, I would go so far as to write that it is a liberal position...lol (possibly even socially liberal...raz'n ya) More longitudinal studies are probably needed.

I think that to combine any of these points and make assumptions that he is combining them is wrong. We can go no further than what his study found out. We must remember that these attitudes may not be life long attitudes. He would have to return to the same subjects ten or twenty years later. I'm sure that some of you are aware of the interesting British longitudinal study that has been examining the same subjects from eight year old children to their forties various attitudes.

The one interesting point that I noticed in the article that I read is the reference to "average". Most psychological studies that I've read tend to use "norm" and "means" rather than the term "average" for statistical comments. I wonder if the journalists have used "average" and assumed that they are the same meaning as "norm" and "means"?

Pasa
I will read the article that you were referring to.

The article that I read quotes the researcher as stating the definition of liberal is "Liberalism, caring about millions of total strangers and giving up money to make sure that those strangers will do well, is evolutionarily novel," Kanazawa says. It doesn't state where or when he is quoted? Is it in an interview or in the report? Your article stated ""liberal" in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people". These quotes are similar but different. We would have to read the actual study report in the Social Psychology Quarterly journal.

One difference is his use of the words " evolutionary novel". The article that I read then extrabolates that to refer to caring about earthquakes in Haiti. I would suspect that this is from an interview with the researcher or the journalist's opinion. I doubt that a journal article would go that far but I may be wrong.


Okay so someone comes up with facts that he twists to support his own thesis, a hypothesis that intelligent people are more likely to be monogamous and non believers....

So we who believe, despite our intelligence apparently are loose, morally?

Really, you can't base anything around intelligence as the smartest person in the world can be dumb as a rock when it comes to relationships and the dumbest person can be the one that always knows exactly what to say to maintain a relationship.

Religion...hah. Religion can be interpreted in so many ways that are not easily defined or explained or charted or even agreed upon among different divisions of the same faith. Some religions have polygamy as a part of their religion, others hold with one spouse til death do you part.


So this guy can publish all the studies he wants, I'll continue hanging with my friends, the above average intelligent wonderful people who I can converse with openly about my faith and my stance on monogamy.

[TwylaTwobits]

Well pardon me, didn't realize a third leg was required to post in this thread, carry on with your pissing contests.

[darkeyes]

Well pardon me, didn't realize a third leg was required to post in this thread, carry on with your pissing contests.

..an who wonts 1 ne ways.. tee hee:tong:

[Hephaestion]

Ladies and gentlemen - it is not possible to quantify 'intelligence' objectively.

Anything that results from such attempted quantification is therefore pseudo-science at best! As for variations on the scale of units - they are laughable.

The term 'IQ' should be put back in the ground where it belongs. Our able science predecessors realised this and abandoned it many years ago.

As an article of curiousity to rent beer over and follow with stories about 'Yetis' / 'Raries', slap thighs and break wind, then excellent - but science i.e. reliable knowledge - NO, emphatically NO, irrespective of factions, reputations or past misdeeds.

[allbimyself]

The basic premise of the study is misguided. IQ tests are not sensitive enough to provide any conclusions when comparing such a small difference (less then 10 points, maybe more).

IQ by definition means that, in any sample of significant size (assuming no bias and total randomness of the sample), the average IQ should be 100. If it is not, then either the sample is not sufficiently random, or the test itself is biased.

EVERY IQ test is biased. We have gotten better at removing bias, but by the nature of the testing method itself, bias can never be totally accounted for.

After the 2004 election, a newspaper in the Northeast (I believe it was the NY Times but I could be mistaken) posted a story about the difference in average IQ between "red states" and "blue states." A majority of states that voted Democratic in the presidential elections had average IQs above 100 (none greater than 102) and the majority of states that voted Republican had average IQs below 100 (none less than 98). The conclusions drawn from that bit of data are obvious, but wrong.

When taken in whole (rather than saying the majority were above or below 100... data selection anyone?), the difference between the avg IQ of all red states and the avg IQ of all blue states was less than 1/2 point (and more closely resembles the cultural bias of the test than the political philosophies involved). This is not statistically significant. Furthermore, if IQ was really a deciding factor in how one votes, the poll results would show this and the difference between the winner and loser in a particular state would be closer to representing the IQ numbers.

My point is, the numbers represented in the study do NOT necessarily reflect the intelligence of one group over another. The fact is, the cultural bias of the test more likely reflects the cultural/political/religious difference of the subjects.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a libertarian atheist (I don't believe in magic or ghosts or any of that stuff either). My views on monogamy are that it is a personal decision among the participants of the relationship (I have always been monogamous but could be in an open relationship if my partner desired). As far as my IQ, I've taken many tests that report IQ. My range is anywhere from 140 - 160 (that range alone should show that not all IQ tests are created equal and have bias).

[rissababynta]

Well pardon me, didn't realize a third leg was required to post in this thread, carry on with your pissing contests.

I agree. Why Tenni feels the need to constantly say in so many words that we are women, so therefore we can't express a thought on anything that has to do with men is beyond me. Guess we should just do the right thing and go back into the kitchen and stick to the things that our opinions should be heard on, like changing diapers and baking pies and discussing which new cleaning product on the market works best on soap scum, huh Tenni ;)

Anyways, I personally think that people shouldn't even be worried about this. I think that people should live their lives how they wish and have faith in what they want and feel comfortable with. Great, while this guy is going off trying to find a link between laid back people and IQ, there are other people in the world trying to come up with cures for cancer...I'm sorry, but the latter is the one that I think people should give a crap about haha.

[FalconAngel]

Okay so someone comes up with facts that he twists to support his own thesis, a hypothesis that intelligent people are more likely to be monogamous and non believers....

So we who believe, despite our intelligence apparently are loose, morally?

Twyla brings up a couple of important points that some people are missing. Two sets of words;
"More likely" and "less likely". Neither are absolutes, so perhaps we should not look at them as absolutes. We are talking odds, here, when we say more or less likely.

I wonder how many of the naysayers even noticed those things when examining the findings?



Really, you can't base anything around intelligence as the smartest person in the world can be dumb as a rock when it comes to relationships and the dumbest person can be the one that always knows exactly what to say to maintain a relationship.

Very true.
However, my understanding is that the study base used a common line intelligence test as a fixed standard, which is an empirical standard to insure fairness of the study for that particular factor.
It is no better or worse than standardized testing as used in schools for testing students.

Then the rest is nothing but surveys with things such as religious preference, position on types of marriage relationships and other related things.
If the survey is not worded in a misleading manner, and every participant takes the exact same survey, then the scientific process is fair.

Does anyone have access to the tests and surveys that he used in his process?
That would clear up a lot of any possible confusion, here, if we can see the process that he used.

There are people that think themselves intelligent that are not, but because they know how to sway opinion in their favor by using the most effective tools of religion and/or emotion, they seem far more intelligent than they are.

Common arguments being the race, religion or victim cards.

Then there are those that, as you have said, are geniuses, but know nothing of effective social interaction for things such as relationships (like the stereotypes portrayed on "The Big Bang Theory" - TV show for our overseas members).



Religion...hah. Religion can be interpreted in so many ways that are not easily defined or explained or charted or even agreed upon among different divisions of the same faith. Some religions have polygamy as a part of their religion, others hold with one spouse til death do you part.

In this case, you are, whether you realize it or not, are predominantly talking about orthodoxic religions, such as Christianity, Islam and Judeism (also a few others that follow a doctrine), but orthopraxic (those that have no specified doctrine, but are experiential in their practice) religions do not run into that.

The keeping of a single spouse is, more a practical thing to keep the human bloodlines open for mating between members of smaller communities. Europe's royalty learned that lesson in the middle ages and renaissance, when interbreeding caused a lot of problems from hemophilia to deformative birth defects.

The idea behind polygamous marriages stems mostly from early biblical times, which may have been practical for producing more babies for and underpopulated group or other regionally localized social or other reasons. Of course, considering that women were considered property at the time, it could have been other, unrelated or egoist reasons, too.



So this guy can publish all the studies he wants, I'll continue hanging with my friends, the above average intelligent wonderful people who I can converse with openly about my faith and my stance on monogamy.

And that is fine. But we also must consider that this is a new study and still needs to go through the peer review process, so we may not get confirmation, one way or the other, on his findings for a few years yet.

For me, I tend to agree, not because of the religion part but because what he is stating jibes with my experiences dealing with folks in a lot of religions on a day to day basis.

Just a guess, mind you, but considering all things to be equal, the Christians are likely the predominant monotheist group that he found for the study, so his findings, while specifically intending to imply monotheists as opposed to just Christians.

Again, going back to your first statement, less likely and more likely are not statements of absolutes, but probabilities.
Not unlike betting on a race horse or poker hand.

Like I said before, just because his findings are controversial, does not mean that he is wrong. It doesn't mean that he is right either, but when the findings are demonstrated by the general population, then it does tend to lend some credence to the findings.

Maybe he's right or maybe it is a fluke, but I doubt that any of us are really qualified to judge his processes without first examining the tools that he used.

[Donkey_burger]

I know none of you guys know this, but once I have tested in the borderline retardation range. There was an asterisk attached that said that my IQ was probably higher than that. My parents still had a lot of trouble convincing my preschool that I didn't have mental retardation. Further IQ tests proved the asterisk right, BTW. A recent neuropsych test estimated my IQ to be high average, with multiple learning differences.

I have no comment on the "point" of the discussion, but thought my contribution would be helpful.

DB :bipride:

[Hephaestion]

Re: IQ

1) The 'questions' and 'answers' tend to be temporal in nature i.e. they are contemporary and thus not really comparable between 'years'. An IQ of 100 is supposed to represent the average intelligence of the year class being measured - based on a SUBSET purportedly random and representative. One notes that there is never any indication of variation. Quite simply the values are adjusted to suit.

2) Allied to #1 above, no one's 'intelligence' is fixed. Ontogeny is a very important factor. There is a strong tendancy to label someone with a number for the entirety of their lives when, in fact, matters may depend on whether one has had a comfortable shit that day.

3) Is the person being measured at all interested in the subjects being examined?

4) If they are interested, in what way are they interested and are they able to communicate adequately. Also are their corporal limitations any hinderence. Are they being interpreted correctly? (the film 'Being There' with Peter Sellers) Conversely, a babbling dribbling physical wreck may well be the astrophysics 'genius' of his time and how many are there like him who are overlooked.

5) The questions tend to be set by people who inhabit one type of world and so set comparisons against things which they are familiar with i.e. the measure is highly contextual. It may be argued that a person on the street fighting for their existence in a dangerously variable environment is showing far more inteligence than a person on a comfortable wage sitting in an office with all supplied writing b***y IQ tests with his back being patted by his equally comfortable chums.

So far we have only dealt with humans because only humans show intelligence - don't they?

[TwylaTwobits]

Alright back to Anthropology 101. Early hunter gatherers practiced polygamy only because there were more females born than males and only the fittest of the males (or the luckiest or we wouldn't have idiots now, darwin's theory would have taken care of them) survived to become mates. They had a society based on first wife and underwives, any captured females from other tribes became slaves. American Indians practiced the same way, often marrying sisters of their first wife as they came of age.

This has nothing to do with religion and more to do with practicality if you are going to quote what our ancestors did. Then again they ate meat raw before fire was discovered, should we stop cooking?

[allbimyself]

For me, I tend to agree, not because of the religion part but because what he is stating jibes with my experiences dealing with folks in a lot of religions on a day to day basis.


Like I said before, just because his findings are controversial, does not mean that he is wrong. It doesn't mean that he is right either, but when the findings are demonstrated by the general population, then it does tend to lend some credence to the findings.
How are the findings "demonstrated by the general population?" Because in your experience it "jibes?"

Methinks you are overly arrogant. When someone agrees with you, you are more likely to think them intelligent. When they disagree with you, you are more likely to think them less intelligent. That's human nature, but it makes your observation self-fulfilling.

Don't get me wrong, if his study stated the exact opposite I'd still be slamming him.

I do believe someone mentioned earlier that this idiot is published (as if that actually means anything). A few years ago a well respected medical journal (now less well respected) published a study that "proved" prayer increased fertility rates among couples that were having trouble conceiving. The study's author and accomplices (ooops, I mean co-authors, research assistants, etc) were later proven to have falsified data. The author was also imprisoned on an unrelated matter (just to demonstrate his character here). This respected medical journal, despite the evidence provided over the intervening years, has yet to publish a retraction.

You stake a lot of your argument on letting peer review take its course, as well it should. However, one doesn't need to wait for peer review to point out obvious deficiencies in assumptions and procedures. Furthermore, there is much more to the scientific method than peer review.

Even if, as you say, he tested all participants with the same test, that is no guarantee of non bias. Someone raised in a religious home, with "conservative" parents, has a different culture than one who is raised in a home that is not religious and "liberal." Even if these individuals lived in the same neighborhood, their cultures are different and therefore the test is biased one way or the other.

[tenni]

1/ Twyla, Rissa and others.

Forgive me if I have confused you but I was pointing out that women were not part of one particular section of this study dealing with polyamour versus monogomy as far as intelligence of the subjects. It has nothing to do with whether you are permitted an opinion. The way that Twyla wrote made me believe that she thought that the study results were directed at her and other women. The aspect of polyamour is directed to men and evolutionary psychology.

2/ Those that deny the use and validity of IQ tests are writing in generalities. Please clarify if you are referring to group IQ testing or individual IQ testing. Individual IQ testing is still used today. As I recall for children it has an acroynym of WISC. (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children) and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. The latest revision was in 2003 and seems to be updated every 8 to 10 years to keep the various aspects valid to present cultural norms. WISC subtests generate a Full Scale score (FSIQ), Verbal IQ and Performance IQ as well as four composite scores known as indices: Verbal Comprehension (VCI), Perceptual Reasoning (PRI), Processing Speed (PSI) and Working Memory (WMI). These are also broken down to further tests. This is a tool and often the sections of the test are more important than the final overall FSIQ score or IQ. These tests are administered individually and behaviour during testing is recorded and reported. This may be examined later to determine if some social component has negatively affected the test result on that day. if so, it is administered again.

Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory was first published in Howard Gardner's book, Frames Of Mind (1983), and quickly became established as a model by which to understand and teach many aspects of human intelligence, learning style, personality and behaviour - in education and industry. Gardner referred to seven intelligence types (Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Musical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Spatial-Visual, Interpersonal, Intrapersonal) Not all types of intelligence are evaluated within a school setting though. In my experience and others, there is not really a satisfactory test to measure creativity as an intelligence factor.

Although there may be still some cultural bias, that has been reduced compared to when the cultural ethnic bias first was being raised twenty or thirty years ago. One may sit smuggly by and state that intelligence may not be measured but in fact some of the intelligence still is and it has validity. These tests are not your grandpa's intelligence test that may have been given in a group settting.

We don't know what testing evaluation device was used on the adolescents to deterimine an IQ rating but we may pretty well assume that the test was one test that all subject took during adolescents. We don't know what control factors that there might have been though.

3/ As Falcon points out this is but one study exploring these concepts. Peer review will happen. As this is a relatively new field, concepts will evolve. Theories usually evolve from research. They are then tested by further studies. They either stand up to criticism or are altered.

The study results may offend some but they shouldn't keep you up at night. Deny them if you wish. This is merely an interesing thesis that may or may not have some validity that is not politically correct.

[tenni]

Pasa
I know that he is required education grad material.

What I am unclear about is your use of the term "the standards of scientific method "?

I still have not read the article that you read though. I should do that asap:)

I'm probably inclined to still keep an open mind on this new "science". I haven't reached the point that you have in my opinion. Maybe this controversial researcher is harming the science.

[FalconAngel]

Re: IQ

1) The 'questions' and 'answers' tend to be temporal in nature i.e. they are contemporary and thus not really comparable between 'years'. An IQ of 100 is supposed to represent the average intelligence of the year class being measured - based on a SUBSET purportedly random and representative. One notes that there is never any indication of variation. Quite simply the values are adjusted to suit.

2) Allied to #1 above, no one's 'intelligence' is fixed. Ontogeny is a very important factor. There is a strong tendancy to label someone with a number for the entirety of their lives when, in fact, matters may depend on whether one has had a comfortable shit that day.

3) Is the person being measured at all interested in the subjects being examined?

4) If they are interested, in what way are they interested and are they able to communicate adequately. Also are their corporal limitations any hinderence. Are they being interpreted correctly? (the film 'Being There' with Peter Sellers) Conversely, a babbling dribbling physical wreck may well be the astrophysics 'genius' of his time and how many are there like him who are overlooked.

5) The questions tend to be set by people who inhabit one type of world and so set comparisons against things which they are familiar with i.e. the measure is highly contextual. It may be argued that a person on the street fighting for their existence in a dangerously variable environment is showing far more inteligence than a person on a comfortable wage sitting in an office with all supplied writing b***y IQ tests with his back being patted by his equally comfortable chums.

So far we have only dealt with humans because only humans show intelligence - don't they?

Now those are all good points.

Does anyone know if any of those factors were considered in the research?

[FalconAngel]

How are the findings "demonstrated by the general population?" Because in your experience it "jibes?"

Yes, my experience with monotheists does jibe with his indicated findings. Like his study, they are not universally true, but a level of probability that has been demonstrated. Try arguing with a Creationist some time, then do the same thing with a different Creationist. They parrot the same arguments, but their eyes glaze over when you start talking hard science with them. They cannot fathom the science that they parrot, because they don't understand it.


Methinks you are overly arrogant. When someone agrees with you, you are more likely to think them intelligent. When they disagree with you, you are more likely to think them less intelligent. That's human nature, but it makes your observation self-fulfilling.

You like calling me arrogant, I think. That does not change my level of competence or confidence in what I say. Name calling does not change the facts.

They can disagree with me all they want, but in order to be right, their argument MUST be both logical and demonstrable. If those two criteria cannot be met, then they are just stating opinion, not fact. If you think that is me being arrogant, then perhaps you should reassess the definitions of fact and opinion.


Don't get me wrong, if his study stated the exact opposite I'd still be slamming him.

But his study does not say the opposite of what has been published.


I do believe someone mentioned earlier that this idiot is published (as if that actually means anything). A few years ago a well respected medical journal (now less well respected) published a study that "proved" prayer increased fertility rates among couples that were having trouble conceiving. The study's author and accomplices (ooops, I mean co-authors, research assistants, etc) were later proven to have falsified data. The author was also imprisoned on an unrelated matter (just to demonstrate his character here). This respected medical journal, despite the evidence provided over the intervening years, has yet to publish a retraction.

And that is the point; "evidence provided over the intervening years, has yet to publish a retraction." Scientific theories change all the time as new evidence/findings come along;
Gravity, Evolution, flow mechanics, Astronomy, physics, etc. have all been changed to fit new evidence that explained holes in them.
And that is what peer review does. Others look at the tests, research and methods to see if the results repeat for duplicated research. That is peer review. In science it isn't people looking at it and seeing if it makes sense to them, it is repeating the experiment and looking to see if the results match or conflict with the original results. As time passes, the results are revisited and new evidence is introduced and tested. Science does not print retractions, just updates to the theories. A retraction is a very different thing, indeed.
In addition to that, science makes very few absolutes because of new measurement abilities that come along and other factors that may not have been able to be measured at the time.

A fine example is Black Holes; 30 years ago, they were only theoretical as was dark matter. As new measurement devices and other related understanding of the universe came about, these theoretical things were determined to have an existence that was demonstrated by evidence.


You stake a lot of your argument on letting peer review take its course, as well it should. However, one doesn't need to wait for peer review to point out obvious deficiencies in assumptions and procedures. Furthermore, there is much more to the scientific method than peer review.

And those deficiencies will come out in peer review.

In Evolution, many challenge Darwin's theory that he didn't get it right. Well, he didn't get it right because he did not have the technology or resources to back up his theories.
But, thanks to modern science, his basic ideas have been demonstrated to be true a thousand times over.

The guy could be wrong, but he could be right. Only time and peer review will tell for sure.


Even if, as you say, he tested all participants with the same test, that is no guarantee of non bias. Someone raised in a religious home, with "conservative" parents, has a different culture than one who is raised in a home that is not religious and "liberal." Even if these individuals lived in the same neighborhood, their cultures are different and therefore the test is biased one way or the other.

Also very true, but (and this is important) IQ is not dependent on culture. It is genetic. And that is the connecting factor by which Kanazawa is trying to use to determine the probabilities for his findings.

As far as culture, you are right. But even in conservative cultures, there are those that "buck the system" as it were. Even in our puritanically influenced culture, there are plenty of folks that believe in polygamous marriage and some of those are very conservative.

However, that goes back to probability, not absolutes. Never forget that there are exceptions to every rule because we are not all cut from the exact same mold; physically, psychologically or intellectually.

It would be a pretty boring world if we were.

[tenni]

Ok Pasa
I see a couple of your points after checking a bit more. In http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/kanazawa.pdf, there is criticism for sloppy statistical analysis. I think that the following paragraph from the criticism has significance for his past studies but we may have to wait until this study is examined.
"It is admirable that Dr. Kanazawa pursues these open
research questions. However, I think that the data should
be analyzed so as to minimize concerns of statistical errors,
and that such problems should be clearly identified in the
abstract and in the body of the article so that the
readership, as well as the popular press, does not overinterpret
speculative research."

What is important is how the popular press may over interprets this or Kanazawa may overinterpet his study results.

In the article that Pasa read (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/), I found it more opinion than reporting. I found that it had more details as well expanding on some details about the subjects in the study. I found Elizabeth Landau making some rather strong comments without support. It read as opinion and not reporting. She vaguely refers to experts without identifying them. In particular, the point about the difference that the statistical difference discussion on the IQ and strong positioning without giving evidence shows the writer acting as a reviewer. The fact that so much ink was spent on a leadership professor James Bailey was interesting. What credentials does this Bailey have to comment on an evolutionary psychology study? When I googled Bailey he also comments on labour and management situations. The Canadian article asked those in the fields of psychology to comment. Bailey extrapolates and hypothesizes about preferences of the intelligent subjects. I think that he enters a rather questionable opinion position by stating that the intelligent subject may have been doing this to show superiority. He didn't interview the subjects. He was not the researcher. He seems off base in my opinion to make such statements.

Quoting Kanazawa as stating that religion helping people to be paranoid seems way off. Where did Kanazawa have any evidence to support this statement? I can see how Pasa considers him a wild card or was it nut case? However, I think that the CNN reporter is not credible either. That casts some doubt on the validity of the article.

[FalconAngel]

What is important is how the popular press may over interprets this or Kanazawa may overinterpet his study results.

That is a major problem with new studies and scientific theories; someone is always going to try to interpret them for the rest of the world instead of just presenting the findings and study methods for the general population.



In the article that Pasa read (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/), I found it more opinion than reporting. I found that it had more details as well expanding on some details about the subjects in the study. I found Elizabeth Landau making some rather strong comments without support. It read as opinion and not reporting. She vaguely refers to experts without identifying them. In particular, the point about the difference that the statistical difference discussion on the IQ and strong positioning without giving evidence shows the writer acting as a reviewer.

Another issue that always happens with new research int controversial science.
You get some reporter, often with their own agenda, that does shoddy research, quoting "experts" that remain nameless, as regards the research findings.
If they are so certain that their experts' opinions are valid, then why do they not name them?



The fact that so much ink was spent on a leadership professor James Bailey was interesting. What credentials does this Bailey have to comment on an evolutionary psychology study? When I googled Bailey he also comments on labour and management situations. The Canadian article asked those in the fields of psychology to comment. Bailey extrapolates and hypothesizes about preferences of the intelligent subjects. I think that he enters a rather questionable opinion position by stating that the intelligent subject may have been doing this to show superiority. He didn't interview the subjects. He was not the researcher. He seems off base in my opinion to make such statements.

I have seen this before with Flat Earthers, Creationists, 2012 conspiracy theorists and others that are using false or misleading information to make a point that they cannot support. Many of their experts have nothing to do with the sciences that they are in opposition to.


Quoting Kanazawa as stating that religion helping people to be paranoid seems way off. Where did Kanazawa have any evidence to support this statement? I can see how Pasa considers him a wild card or was it nut case?

Well, I think that the paranoia thing is a more recent Past 1100 years) thing, although Christianity does have a lot of leadership-induced paranoia throughout history. Mostly aimed at secular differences and non-Christians, though. Islam is not any different.

But, as you said, only time and peer review will tell.

[darkeyes]

A wee word a caution dismissin or othawise a man's work.. many scientist hav been accused a many things..includin bad science an sloppy research only 2 b proved more rite than rong.. but will say hav always felt inside that those on the left r a tadge briter than those on rite.. liberal, monogamous, athiest or othawise..men an women.. yet cos a me own prejudices hav always dismissed it as an personal arrogance an think its quite rite than ne 1 who thinks such shud take cold shower an stop playin silly buggas..agree wiv Allbi bout that:eek:... is so very difficult 2 quantify intelligence an IQ tests jus r 2 imperfect 2 b ne kind a guide an hav essentially been discredited, so wtf peeps still use 'em don hav a clue.. in the main ne difference in intelligence is so minimal as 2 b irrelevant in the groups considered..

..howeva.. wer me dus think that on both the Fascist/Nazi right an Stalinist/Trotskyist left mos, not all by ne means, peeps a the rank an file r a bit dim cos they r part of a follow my leader kinda politics, an r easily manipulated by the intellectual drivin forces a those particular philosophies by buyin inta the lies an fabrications a such groups.. in many ways it seems 2 me from me own observations in many fundamentalist religious groups..a similar pattern can b seen.. this may also b a personal arrogance.. but hav had run ins wiv alla them at 1 time or otha an hav seen how they operate on the streets, hav heard the stock brain dead phrases, an a cupple a times hav felt the mandatory fist an boot...:(

Me knos this is hardly stayin outa debate.. but cudn keep me gob shut ne longa.. soz..:( Bak 2 work fore me gets mesel inta ne more botha...:rolleyes:

[allbimyself]

Yes, my experience with monotheists does jibe with his indicated findings. Like his study, they are not universally true, but a level of probability that has been demonstrated. Try arguing with a Creationist some time, then do the same thing with a different Creationist. They parrot the same arguments, but their eyes glaze over when you start talking hard science with them. They cannot fathom the science that they parrot, because they don't understand it.Have a go debating a Jesuit priest sometime. Yes, we can all find someone supporting either side of any issue that is a moron, but can also find someone that is intellectually gifted. Pointing out the misguided creationists is really a strawman. They do not represent the whole of "conservatives" and from the researchers own mouth is not how he defined "conservative."




You like calling me arrogant, I think. That does not change my level of competence or confidence in what I say. Name calling does not change the facts.My apologies. I should have said you are behaving arrogantly.


They can disagree with me all they want, but in order to be right, their argument MUST be both logical and demonstrable. If those two criteria cannot be met, then they are just stating opinion, not fact. If you think that is me being arrogant, then perhaps you should reassess the definitions of fact and opinion.Not at all. You've fallen into a trap that so called psychics like to use. You remember the "hits" that support your supposition and disregard the "misses." Either that, or you need to try meeting a more diverse group of people.




But his study does not say the opposite of what has been published.
The point that you fail to grasp, or purposely ignored, is that my opinion of the study is not colored by its conclusion. I doubt that you can say the same. If it did say the opposite, you would not be defending it.



And that is the point; "evidence provided over the intervening years, has yet to publish a retraction." Scientific theories change all the time as new evidence/findings come along;
Gravity, Evolution, flow mechanics, Astronomy, physics, etc. have all been changed to fit new evidence that explained holes in them.
And that is what peer review does. Others look at the tests, research and methods to see if the results repeat for duplicated research. That is peer review. In science it isn't people looking at it and seeing if it makes sense to them, it is repeating the experiment and looking to see if the results match or conflict with the original results. As time passes, the results are revisited and new evidence is introduced and tested. Science does not print retractions, just updates to the theories. A retraction is a very different thing, indeed.
In addition to that, science makes very few absolutes because of new measurement abilities that come along and other factors that may not have been able to be measured at the time.Oh jeez. "Science doesn't print retractions?" Science doesn't publish anything. Journals do. Again you failed to grasp the point or again ignored it. The fact of being published doesn't enhance the position of the author.

Saying that peer review will happen as an argument to stifle those that criticize is a neat trick. That's part of peer review. Pointing out deficiencies in the protocols and invalid assumptions IS review!


A fine example is Black Holes; 30 years ago, they were only theoretical as was dark matter. As new measurement devices and other related understanding of the universe came about, these theoretical things were determined to have an existence that was demonstrated by evidence.
Nice story. Can you at least apply it to the current study? There is a big difference between theorizing dark matter based on mathematical calculation of things we could measure and later proving it, and this study.



And those deficiencies will come out in peer review.
Not when people like yourself try to stifle reviews. He may be right, but he hasn't proved it because the study was flawed.



In Evolution, many challenge Darwin's theory that he didn't get it right. Well, he didn't get it right because he did not have the technology or resources to back up his theories.
But, thanks to modern science, his basic ideas have been demonstrated to be true a thousand times over.So? A lot of scientists have theorized things that turned out to be wrong.


The guy could be wrong, but he could be right. Only time and peer review will tell for sure.So why are you trying so hard to stifle criticism? That's part of peer review.




Also very true, but (and this is important) IQ is not dependent on culture. It is genetic. And that is the connecting factor by which Kanazawa is trying to use to determine the probabilities for his findings.Actually it is dependent on much more than genetics. But that's not important. I NEVER said IQ was dependent on culture. I said that the tests are biased because of culture and therefore the true IQ of those tested cannot be measured by any test, certainly not with the degree of accuracy needed to support his supposition. The minor variance shown in the study is NOT statistically significant because a difference of a few points on any IQ test is not statistically significant. Therefore any conclusions drawn on that difference is suspect. Notice I did not say "wrong." It may be correct but it has not been proven by this study.


As far as culture, you are right. But even in conservative cultures, there are those that "buck the system" as it were. Even in our puritanically influenced culture, there are plenty of folks that believe in polygamous marriage and some of those are very conservative.Which has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.


However, that goes back to probability, not absolutes. Never forget that there are exceptions to every rule because we are not all cut from the exact same mold; physically, psychologically or intellectually.

It would be a pretty boring world if we were.Again, you are trying to defend the conclusion of the study because it "makes sense" to you. We can only judge the study on it's own merits. Anecdotal "evidence" that supports it has no bearing.

The study was flawed for the reasons I've given. If you can debate those reasons, please do. Offering up arguments that in the past scientists have been ridiculed and later proven right, or theories that could not be proven until later because of technological limitations, or how your unscientific observations support the conclusion are NOT relevant.

Furthermore, claiming peer review will sort it out as a defense against points made about the flaws of the study is laughable. What do you think peer review is? The process is not only attempts to duplicate the results, but also analyzing the procedures, assumptions and conclusions.

He is drawing conclusions on a statistically insignificant difference in IQ. That's already been shown. Therefore the study is flawed and does not support the conclusion. Whether it is later determined that the conclusion was correct or not is irrelevant. False evidence of a truth is still false.

[tenni]

Pasa
The only thing that I will disagree with you on your post 47 is
"It is Kazanawa's responsibility as a "scientist" to ensure that the press gets it right."

I think that Kazanawa's responsibility is to get it right in his report in the Journal. If he has sloppy statistical analysis then his study is flawed. At some point, the Journal itself needs to be held accountable. When should a journal say that they will not publish Kazanawa's studies?

I think that it is interesting that out of all journal reports and in particular evolutionary psychological study reports that main stream journalists are selecting this guy. Although I've not read the actual study report, (a big one for all of us), why are mainstream journalists picking Kazanawa's studies to comment on? It may be that they have a sensationalism aspect. As I stated, I don't think that the CNN reporter was being very credible but most people will not examine her statements that carefully. Will such reporting encourage bigotry in the mainstream?

[Donkey_burger]

[Snip]

Also very true, but (and this is important) IQ is not dependent on culture. It is genetic. And that is the connecting factor by which Kanazawa is trying to use to determine the probabilities for his findings.

[snip]

No, Falcon Angel, you are wrong. IQ IS cultural! What it's trying to measure (intelligence), is influenced by both genetics and environment. For example, somebody might have the right genetic makeup to become an artistic person, but if they aren't exposed to artistic outlets cus they have to think about eating or something, then they probably won't be very artistic, relatively.

It's been proven time and again that African American people don't perform as well on IQ tests like Caucasian people do. A while ago, I heard on NPR that an IQ test was made that was the total opposite--African American people performed better than Caucasian people. In fact, I wonder what happened to it.

DB :flag2:

[FalconAngel]

Have a go debating a Jesuit priest sometime.

I am smart enough to not argue with the "Jebbies". They are the lawyers of Christianity. Even the Catholic church knows better than to argue with them. They are the best educated Christians on the planet.


Yes, we can all find someone supporting either side of any issue that is a moron, but can also find someone that is intellectually gifted. Pointing out the misguided creationists is really a strawman. They do not represent the whole of "conservatives" and from the researchers own mouth is not how he defined "conservative."

Very true, and, as I said before, there are exceptions to every rule and even the study is not dealing with absolutes. It is, after all, a new study and has yet to go though the peer review process. He could be off base or he could be on to something that people are not ready for. He wouldn't be the first to present findings that some are unwilling to accept.
DaVinci was considered a grave robber, but without his studies of the Human body and it's structure, we may be a hundred or more years behind in medicine.
People were not ready for his research, which had a huge effect on the practice and study of the medical arts. Not being ready to accept the findings (or look at them closely and without bias) does not necessarily make it wrong.



My apologies. I should have said you are behaving arrogantly.
Not at all. You've fallen into a trap that so called psychics like to use. You remember the "hits" that support your supposition and disregard the "misses." Either that, or you need to try meeting a more diverse group of people.

I am not ignoring the misses.
I recognize that not everything that he has found is necessarily accurate. but it does match the available evidence. That is what peer review and repeat testing is used to clear up.
Also, I am fully aware that his studies are localized to the geographic area that he is working in and different cultures can have different results

No scientific theory is without holes in it, at the start. Many times the holes are from a lack of acceptable testing methods or faulty information to start with. It has been like that with many of the most important scientific theories in our history.
Einstein's theory of relativity could not be measured at the time it came out and has been disputed right up until we could prove the existence of black holes.
Evolution was treated just like this new theory, by the same groups none the less, and still is, even though there is tons of indisputable evidence to prove it.

All I am saying is that as long as the evidence fits the theory, the theory is valid. As you well know, that is how science works.
And, as many of us have said, including both you and me, this theory still has to survive peer review.


The point that you fail to grasp, or purposely ignored, is that my opinion of the study is not colored by its conclusion. I doubt that you can say the same. If it did say the opposite, you would not be defending it.

I fully grasp it. There have been lots of studies that I have seen that don't jibe with reality. If it doesn't make sense, then it doesn't make sense. Unless the science is beyond my grasp, it has to make sense with the available evidence.

In this case, if right wing (Dominion) Christians behaved differently than they do, I would dispute Kanazawa's findings as well, but, as I said, the theory matches the available evidence.

And it has to make sense.


Oh jeez. "Science doesn't print retractions?" Science doesn't publish anything. Journals do.

Which confirms what I said. I never claimed that Science publishes anything. If I did, then show me the post where I said that science publishes anything.

You are pulling at straws with that one.


Again you failed to grasp the point or again ignored it. The fact of being published doesn't enhance the position of the author.

I never said that publishing something gives credence to anything. Again; show me where I said that it did.

Creationists, conspiracy theorists, Flat Earthers, 2012 paranoids and a ton of others have been published.
That does not mean that they have credence, simply because they were published. What they published must make sense and comply with known scientific fact and empirical testing methods (whichever applies in each case).

We don't know if Kanazawa came to a conclusion and tried to prove it, then his work is way beyond flawed. But if he drew his conclusions from empirical testing that was poorly done, then he can still come to a correct conclusion, albeit accidentally. Darwin did the same thing with his theory of evolution. His findings were flawed by his method, yet his theory has still been proven over and over again by constant peer review and new evidence.

Either way, the evidence supports his findings, at least superficially. If it is found later to be a flawed study, then it will have to be approached with better testing methods and procedures.


Saying that peer review will happen as an argument to stifle those that criticize is a neat trick. That's part of peer review. Pointing out deficiencies in the protocols and invalid assumptions IS review!

review by the press is not peer review. Peer review only happens by others in the same field (and sometimes directly related fields) looking over the findings, testing the hypothesis over again and determining if the results match the original findings. Then there are limited choices at that point.

1. If the results match and the method is flawed, then new tests are developed and used to determine the validity of the initial hypothesis and the whole process starts again from scratch.

2. If the results do not match, the hypothesis is written off as inaccurate. This could encourage others to look deeper or to just ignore it altogether at that point.

3. If the study methods are found to be flawed, then change the testing tools and procedures to use methods and tools that are as accurate as possible and redo the study to see if the results change.



Nice story. Can you at least apply it to the current study? There is a big difference between theorizing dark matter based on mathematical calculation of things we could measure and later proving it, and this study.

It is all about measurements.
Science does not work under the assumption that a theory is right or wrong and then go on to prove/disprove the theory. Science looks at the evidence, measures it and develops a theory that fits all of the available evidence.
No other method is scientific.

In the case of Dark Matter, it has been measured, it is demonstrated to exist, but they just don't know what it is composed of.http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/dark_matter.html

I start to get lost when it gets into quantum physics.



Not when people like yourself try to stifle reviews. He may be right, but he hasn't proved it because the study was flawed.

When did I try to "stifle" the reviews. I only stated the facts about those reviews. So far, the "public" reviews (as opposed to the scientific publications) have been as flawed as you say that the study has been. Citing un-named "experts". Like I said before, the experts must be named for their opinions to have even the slightest value.

And I have already admitted that the hypothesis needs to survive peer review, but I have also stated that the evidence, seen around us every day, tends to support the findings. That may be coincidence or it may not be coincidence. Only peer review will tell and peer review would have only just started.


So? A lot of scientists have theorized things that turned out to be wrong.
So why are you trying so hard to stifle criticism? That's part of peer review.

So stating my opinion is "stifling criticism"?

Exactly how am I stifling criticism (other than claiming that my opinion does so)?

Stifling criticism is not part of peer review. In science, criticism is both expected and welcomed. One cannot advance a hypothesis to a theory without it. Criticism is necessary to correct flaws in the findings and to allow clarification of findings.


Actually it is dependent on much more than genetics. But that's not important. I NEVER said IQ was dependent on culture.

I never said that culture has an effect on genetics, but it does have an effect on behavior and beliefs.

I also never claimed that IQ was dependent on culture. However when you combine the two with each other, that can have an effect that is both noticeable and measurable.


I said that the tests are biased because of culture and therefore the true IQ of those tested cannot be measured by any test, certainly not with the degree of accuracy needed to support his supposition.

How, exactly, is an IQ test biased for or against a culture and if the tests are not able to measure with any degree of accuracy, then why do we have the tests in the first place?

Do you not believe in the validity of IQ tests?

I noticed that the study did not state that there was a huge degree of difference, just that the difference was noteworthy.



The minor variance shown in the study is NOT statistically significant because a difference of a few points on any IQ test is not statistically significant. Therefore any conclusions drawn on that difference is suspect. Notice I did not say "wrong." It may be correct but it has not been proven by this study.

Yes they could be suspect.
As I said in an earlier post, if anyone has all of the testing methods, research materials (questions asked, et al), and other material directly related to the testing methods, then we could see, for ourselves, if the testing methodology and tools were, in fact, flawed.

Five points on the currently used IQ tests can mean the difference between being average and being a genius. It can also mean the difference between being "mentally challenged" and being average intelligence. So five points is significant, based on our current standards for measurement.

Now unless you have a better method of measurement than currently in use around the world, then what we have is what we have until something better and more accurate is developed to change or prove the findings.

Your argument as regarding the IQ testing questions the validity of and demanding more accurate methods and tests than we have available.

How does one use a testing method that has yet to be developed?


Which has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.
Again, you are trying to defend the conclusion of the study because it "makes sense" to you. We can only judge the study on it's own merits. Anecdotal "evidence" that supports it has no bearing.

If the results do not match the evidence, then it does not make sense, does it? In science, it must make sense (be both measurable and logical with supporting evidence).

Let me illustrate my point;

The recent Earthquake in Chile has caused a 2 milliarcsecond difference in the position of our polar axis. Some 2012 theorists have taken this to be a sign that the 2012 "end of the world" prophesy is true. NOw if you take that at face value, then it makes sense. But if you look at the demonstrated and measurable evidence, it shows tat the Earth has always wobbled on it's axis as much as 7 degrees.
So the evidence shows that the 2012 end of world theory does not make sense.

The lesson here is that it must make sense based on all of the available evidence.



The study was flawed for the reasons I've given. If you can debate those reasons, please do. Offering up arguments that in the past scientists have been ridiculed and later proven right, or theories that could not be proven until later because of technological limitations, or how your unscientific observations support the conclusion are NOT relevant.

The evidence is there, all around you. You can choose to ignore it, if you choose to. That will not change the evidence.

If the study is flawed, then it is flawed, but the evidence remains.

Discounting technological measurement limitations is the argument of someone who does not understand how science works and disregards all of the advancements in medicine, astronomy, geology, archeology, genetics, biology, volcanology, aeronautic sciences, meteorology, physics, geophysics, astrophysics, quantum physics, and a thousand other old and new scientific fields that have been developed as technology advances.


Furthermore, claiming peer review will sort it out as a defense against points made about the flaws of the study is laughable. What do you think peer review is? The process is not only attempts to duplicate the results, but also analyzing the procedures, assumptions and conclusions.

What's laughable is that you are arguing against something that I actually had agreed with earlier.

I know what peer review is. I have even explained the peer review process. I find it amusing that you have decided to "educate" me on the peer review process which I had explained earlier, in another post on the subject.

You just like arguing with me, but that is another issue.


He is drawing conclusions on a statistically insignificant difference in IQ. That's already been shown. Therefore the study is flawed and does not support the conclusion. Whether it is later determined that the conclusion was correct or not is irrelevant.

Scientific conclusions are based on evidence, not opinion. In science they start with the evidence and draw conclusions from the evidence. Science does not draw a conclusion then seek out evidence for the conclusion.

Science starts with "why does". Science does not start with "this works this way, now let's let's prove it".

In science, unless the evidence is a complete fabrication, it is never false. The conclusions can be inaccurate, or even flat out wrong, but the evidence is what it is.

If the evidence is false, then the conclusion can never be proven true, since the fabricated "evidence" is not really evidence. Evidence must survive independent examination. Another byproduct of peer review; assessing the validity of the evidence.

Conclusion and evidence have every relevance to each other. One cannot make the other right or wrong.


False evidence of a truth is still false.

Taking the route of circular logic, I see.

False evidence cannot be proven and is, therefore, not evidence, but opinion.

Evidence cannot be falsified because falsified "evidence" cannot be proven and verified under independent scrutiny. Evidence must survive independent evaluation.

To falsify evidence is to invite disaster for a hypothesis.

[FalconAngel]

No, Falcon Angel, you are wrong. IQ IS cultural! What it's trying to measure (intelligence), is influenced by both genetics and environment. For example, somebody might have the right genetic makeup to become an artistic person, but if they aren't exposed to artistic outlets cus they have to think about eating or something, then they probably won't be very artistic, relatively.

But that is where you are wrong.

Using your example, artistic ability and intelligence are not related. However hand-eye coordination and dexterity are interrelated to artistic ability.

Anyone with artistic ability can draw what they see. Our earliest ancestors left some very telling artwork behind, yet they were not exposed to artistic culture.

So you are confusing cultural differences with IQ. IQ is the ability of the brain to absorb, retain and recall information. Like a computer. A 300Gb hard drive will hold a lot less data that a 1Tb hard drive. That is the simplest way that I have to explain it.



It's been proven time and again that African American people don't perform as well on IQ tests like Caucasian people do. A while ago, I heard on NPR that an IQ test was made that was the total opposite--African American people performed better than Caucasian people. In fact, I wonder what happened to it.

DB :flag2:


I have heard of that. They did that a couple of decades ago. Maybe they did it again more recently.

Again, it is how the test questions relate to the culture that the test is being held in.
You take the same test that we use here and use it in the Middle East, Japan, the Pacific rim or Eastern Europe and you will run into similar results to the results that they got in Africa.

However when the test is using the same criteria, but is converted for cultural differences, then the results stay basically the same as here.

Culture actually has nothing to do with IQ but it does affect the understanding of the questions on the test, when used in cultural context. Your own example has shown that.

[allbimyself]

OK, I'm not going to quote all the stuff you said simply because it's pointless. Like you've done in other debates you've twisted my words, particularly saying I said that you said something you didn't.

I never claimed you said IQ was affected by culture. Your claim was that I did and I merely clarified my position, that the culture of the test taker can affect the measurement of the IQ NOT the person's intelligence. You obviously can't debate that so you purposely misunderstood. Either that or you are not as intelligent as you claim to be.


In this case, if right wing (Dominion) Christians behaved differently than they do, I would dispute Kanazawa's findings as well, but, as I said, the theory matches the available evidence.Thank you for proving my point. Your anecdotal "evidence" and your beliefs color your ability to fairly judge the work. You believe that Dominion Christians are less intelligent, therefore the study "makes sense." That's totally unscientific and cannot be used to judge the conclusions. It's anecdotal. Furthermore, if you bother reading and understanding what Kanazawa said, his definition of "conservative" and yours do not mesh. So using them as your standard is also wrong, doubly damning your arguments. There are many "liberals" more closely aligned to what he defines as "liberal" that are just as moronic as any creationist, so again, your argument won't wash.


Which confirms what I said. I never claimed that Science publishes anything. If I did, then show me the post where I said that science publishes anything.I did quote you, but so be it. You said "science doesn't PRINT retractions." Quibbling over the difference between "print" and "publish" doesn't enhance your credibility.


I never said that publishing something gives credence to anything. Again; show me where I said that it did.I never said you did. I was referring to someone else. You however chose to take issue with what I said and I clarified and expounded. Again, because you couldn't refute what I said you twist it around.


Either way, the evidence supports his findings, at least superficially. If it is found later to be a flawed study, then it will have to be approached with better testing methods and procedures.No it does not. His methods and assumptions are demonstrably wrong. The only "evidence" you've offered to support his conclusion is anecdotal.



review by the press is not peer review. Peer review only happens by others in the same field (and sometimes directly related fields) looking over the findings, testing the hypothesis over again and determining if the results match the original findings. Then there are limited choices at that point.How did the press get involved? You are wrong. Peer review is not so limited in scope as you claim it to be. Review also includes reviewing the procedures used to gather data and the assumptions made (in this case about the significance of difference in IQ) then the entire study is bogus. Even if his conclusions are correct, the study does not support those conclusions. That would be like saying "I conducted an experiment. I threw a quarter in the air and it came up heads, therefore the sun will rise in the East." Just because the sun DOES rise in the East, doesn't mean the experiment was valid.


Science does not work under the assumption that a theory is right or wrong and then go on to prove/disprove the theory. Science looks at the evidence, measures it and develops a theory that fits all of the available evidence.
No other method is scientific. Very good. I never claimed anything different. I know quite well, tyvm, all about the scientific method. BTW, your point about the ability to measure a phenomenon is well taken, however what you fail to consider is that if one KNOWS one's tools are inaccurate, one should be very careful about drawing conclusions about the measurements taken. Especially when the degree of difference is within the known variance of the tool.



How, exactly, is an IQ test biased for or against a culture and if the tests are not able to measure with any degree of accuracy, then why do we have the tests in the first place?Google IQ test accuracy. You can find many links that demonstrate that those taking a given test whose culture is more closely related to that of the test designers score better than those whose culture is less closely related. I did not say "tests are not able to measure with ANY degree of accuracy." I stated that their degree of accuracy was outside the tolerances assumed by this study. Obviously, they do contain some degree of accuracy. But the level of accuracy varies from test to test, not only because of the way the questions are asked but in what questions are asked.


So stating my opinion is "stifling criticism"?No. But deflecting criticism of the study by stating peer review will sort it out, when that criticism is part of the review process is an attempt to negate that criticism without debating the points made. You offer anecdotal evidence in support of the conclusion which, if you understand the scientific method as well as you claim, you should know is totally without scientific value. But then claim that actual scientifically valid criticism isn't important.


Now unless you have a better method of measurement than currently in use around the world, then what we have is what we have until something better and more accurate is developed to change or prove the findings.

Your argument as regarding the IQ testing questions the validity of and demanding more accurate methods and tests than we have available.

How does one use a testing method that has yet to be developed?Oh boy. I'm not criticizing the use of inaccurate methods when there are none better available. I'm criticizing the conclusions reached when it is known that the tools are inaccurate. If a method of measuring distance were only accurate within 5 kilometers and you measure the distance between two sets of points, the first two being 61Km apart and the other 60Km, you could NOT state with authoritative certainty that the first two points are further apart. If someone did make that assumption, the problem is not the tool but the person making the assumption.


If the study is flawed, then it is flawed, but the evidence remains.No no no! If the method used to collect data is flawed, the data is flawed and is NOT evidence.


Discounting technological measurement limitations is the argument of someone who does not understand how science works and disregards all of the advancements in medicine, astronomy, geology, archeology, genetics, biology, volcanology, aeronautic sciences, meteorology, physics, geophysics, astrophysics, quantum physics, and a thousand other old and new scientific fields that have been developed as technology advances.Oh please. I understand a lot more about the scientific method than you evidently do. The degrees of inaccuracy of data collected when you know you can only measure to a certain tolerance MUST be taken into account before drawing conclusions. It has always been that way. Anyone who does not account for inaccuracy in measurements is a fool and dangerous.

Just because the study supports your beliefs does not validate your beliefs. Years ago the data suggested that blacks were less intelligent than whites because blacks consistently scored lower on IQ tests. To racists, this seemed reasonable as it "jibed" with how they saw the world. However, as we know, the difference in scores did NOT actually reflect a difference in intelligence or cognitive ability, but rather a cultural bias in the tests themselves. Anyone that concluded that blacks were intellectually inferior based on that data was wrong.


Similarly, young adults who called themselves "very liberal" had an average IQ of 106 during adolescence, while those who identified themselves as "very conservative" had average IQs of 95. Yes, that difference is marked, even when taking into account the inaccuracies of the test. However, it is far from conclusive that it means that "conservatives" are less intelligent. Far more interesting to me would be to subject those in their 40s to this test. Choosing young adults is flawed. People political opinions change as they gain experience. Older people tend to be more conservative. Does that mean people tend to get stupid as they age? I'd posit that a likely explanation of the difference is simple rebellion. More intelligent young adults are more likely to rebel against authority. Those in authority tend to be more conservative, hence the more intelligent youth is more likely to identify as liberal. Obviously, I'm not stating this hypothesis with any degree of authority, but it's just as likely a conclusion, barring further evidence, as liberals being more intelligent than conservatives. I tend to think the average liberal IS more intelligent than the average conservative, but I'm certainly intellectually honest enough not to quote this abortion of research as a basis to support that belief.

[FalconAngel]

OK, I'm not going to quote all the stuff you said simply because it's pointless. Like you've done in other debates you've twisted my words, particularly saying I said that you said something you didn't.

Then perhaps choosing your words a bit more carefully is in order. To eliminate that misunderstanding, of course.


I never claimed you said IQ was affected by culture. Your claim was that I did and I merely clarified my position, that the culture of the test taker can affect the measurement of the IQ NOT the person's intelligence. You obviously can't debate that so you purposely misunderstood. Either that or you are not as intelligent as you claim to be.

And I quantified my statement by addressing the issue of cultural difference, as regards IQ testing, when I made my response to Donkeyburger.
Did you skip that one, too?
I have debated you to the point of having run out of opinions to use, so now have no facts or evidence to use, so I am at least as good or better at debate than you. And the fact that I do know the difference between opinion and fact shows that I am more intelligent than you give me credit.

Never underestimate an opponent.


Thank you for proving my point. Your anecdotal "evidence" and your beliefs color your ability to fairly judge the work. You believe that Dominion Christians are less intelligent, therefore the study "makes sense."

I am truly sorry that I do not allow ego to be "evidence", as you have been doing, but when we are talking about science and the scientific findings of others, we must address the known evidence; not opinion; not ego; and never things that cannot be measured or are not measurable. Like opinion.

So tell us all one thing; Have you seen the details of the testing and measuring procedures that were used in the study?
If not, then you are no more qualified to make a judgment of the integrity of his work than I am.


That's totally unscientific and cannot be used to judge the conclusions. It's anecdotal.

How do you define anecdotal? My experience is not just limited to me; it is repeated over and over all around the globe. Do you listen to the news at all?

Don't piss on my leg and try to convince me that it's raining.


Furthermore, if you bother reading and understanding what Kanazawa said, his definition of "conservative" and yours do not mesh.

So tell me what MY definition of "conservative" is, since you are now implying that you know me better than I know myself.

Again, opinion is not evidence, so get off of that bandwagon.


So using them as your standard is also wrong, doubly damning your arguments. There are many "liberals" more closely aligned to what he defines as "liberal" that are just as moronic as any creationist, so again, your argument won't wash.

Actually, until this study came along, I just thought it was a fluke of behavior and a very subtle kind of social brainwashing.

Again, evidence has more weight than opinion.

And I know that there are lots of liberals that are just as dumb as any Creationist or conservative.

They are just 2 sides of the same coin, but I don't expect you to see that.


I did quote you, but so be it. You said "science doesn't PRINT retractions." Quibbling over the difference between "print" and "publish" doesn't enhance your credibility.

I know that you quoted me. And you completely ignored my response, so let me make it simple, so that you can understand it, since you didn't appear to understand it the first time.

Because science does not publish/print findings it is impossible for them to publish/print a retraction. Only the journalists can do that.

Science addresses the questions and makes the discoveries. Nothing more or less.


I never said you did. I was referring to someone else. You however chose to take issue with what I said and I clarified and expounded. Again, because you couldn't refute what I said you twist it around.

Well then that was a misunderstanding.


No it does not. His methods and assumptions are demonstrably wrong. The only "evidence" you've offered to support his conclusion is anecdotal.

Again, have you seen the research materials, procedures and all of the other pertinent details? If not, then what you have been stating is opinion and nothing more.

If you have access to those details and all of the documentation and procedures,that you are implying that you have such detailed knowledge of, then post the link so that we can all look at it and decide for ourselves.

If you don't have access to the details of the research, then you have no basis for your opinions. Not even anecdotal data.


You are wrong. Peer review is not so limited in scope as you claim it to be. Review also includes reviewing the procedures used to gather data and the assumptions made (in this case about the significance of difference in IQ) then the entire study is bogus.

I did not say that peer review was as limited as you think I did. I did state that it includes all of the procedures and research data as well as all pertinent factors of the testing/measurement of the study.

Stop reading what I write through your ego colored glasses.



Even if his conclusions are correct, the study does not support those conclusions.

Again, one cannot make correct conclusions from wrong data, unless it is some kind of fluke


That would be like saying "I conducted an experiment. I threw a quarter in the air and it came up heads, therefore the sun will rise in the East." Just because the sun DOES rise in the East, doesn't mean the experiment was valid.

Ah, yes. Heard this one before. Nor does it mean that throwing the quarter into the air make the sun rise in any direction. They are two unrelated events with no bearing on each other and that is one of those piss poor arguments that I have come to expect from you.

You have depended on the "because I say so" argument, which proves that you are arguing opinion v evidence.

Opinion is what you think, while evidence is visible and/or measurable. Opinion is not.

So like I said before, if you have access to that research material, that makes you certain that the study is as flawed as you imply, then let's see it.


Very good. I never claimed anything different. I know quite well, tyvm, all about the scientific method. BTW, your point about the ability to measure a phenomenon is well taken, however what you fail to consider is that if one KNOWS one's tools are inaccurate, one should be very careful about drawing conclusions about the measurements taken. Especially when the degree of difference is within the known variance of the tool.

Neither should one disregard the measurement devices just because they are not 100% accurate, as long as they are the best tools we have available.

Again, every theory is under constant peer review and those theories all are subject to change as science develops more and more accurate tools to do measurements that are more accurate.

Tectonic shift was a questionable and controversial theory until we were able to measure tectonic shift with any degree of accuracy. When it first came out, people thought that California was going to sink into the ocean, but as accurate measuring devices and techniques came about, we discovered that it is actually moving inland. Slowly, but the original theory changed as new methods were developed.

It is the same as this theory. And remember that it is a new hypothesis. That makes it controversial no matter what the subject. It isn't a theory yet. Not until after it survives initial peer review.



Google IQ test accuracy. You can find many links that demonstrate that those taking a given test whose culture is more closely related to that of the test designers score better than those whose culture is less closely related. I did not say "tests are not able to measure with ANY degree of accuracy." I stated that their degree of accuracy was outside the tolerances assumed by this study. Obviously, they do contain some degree of accuracy. But the level of accuracy varies from test to test, not only because of the way the questions are asked but in what questions are asked.

So, if I understand you correctly, the best device we have to make the measurement is not acceptable, because it is not as accurate as we would like and that flaws the initial study to the point of being unacceptable.
So, should this study have waited until a more accurate measuring device/method comes along or should we continue with what we have and modify the hypothesis as more accurate measuring devices come along (like we do with every other hypothesis)?

Science does not treat theories like doctrine. They treat theories as a mystery, to be studied, explored and modified as evidence changes or supports the theory.


No. But deflecting criticism of the study by stating peer review will sort it out, when that criticism is part of the review process is an attempt to negate that criticism without debating the points made. You offer anecdotal evidence in support of the conclusion which, if you understand the scientific method as well as you claim, you should know is totally without scientific value. But then claim that actual scientifically valid criticism isn't important.

But that IS how science works.
The study/research shows a conclusion, based on the evidence developed through the research, but peer review is the back up and that backup, double-checking, and reassessment is ongoing until the theory has been demonstrated to be true consistently without significant exception, or until the conclusions are shown, through the peer review processes, to be in error.


Oh boy. I'm not criticizing the use of inaccurate methods when there are none better available. I'm criticizing the conclusions reached when it is known that the tools are inaccurate. If a method of measuring distance were only accurate within 5 kilometers and you measure the distance between two sets of points, the first two being 61Km apart and the other 60Km, you could NOT state with authoritative certainty that the first two points are further apart. If someone did make that assumption, the problem is not the tool but the person making the assumption.

But that is the point that you are missing.
In both new research and more often in groundbreaking research, the tools are rarely as accurate as we would like.

If you want to wait until more accurate tools come along, then nothing ne will be learned because without the initial research there is no need for the more accurate tools to do the research.
In science, as with all technology, the tool does not exist until it is needed, which is rarely before the technology is developed.


No no no! If the method used to collect data is flawed, the data is flawed and is NOT evidence.

Flawed data is not always wrong data. Flawed data can be inaccurate, but wrong data is far beyond inaccurate.


Oh please. I understand a lot more about the scientific method than you evidently do. The degrees of inaccuracy of data collected when you know you can only measure to a certain tolerance MUST be taken into account before drawing conclusions. It has always been that way. Anyone who does not account for inaccuracy in measurements is a fool and dangerous.

Which is where probabilities com into play.

You need to understand that new research is almost never exactly right. The first time that any hypothesis is created, if the tools for it are in their relative infancy, then they are not going to be accurate. At first. Again, this is where peer review comes in as well.
Through the process, newer and often better tools get developed and once again the hypothesis is modified for the newer data.
If it develops into a proper scientific theory, then it has survived to the point where further study is determined to be necessary and the newer tools are further developed to their maximum accuracy.

That happens through both the development and peer review processes.


Just because the study supports your beliefs does not validate your beliefs.

Nor does your opinion invalidate them.


Years ago the data suggested that blacks were less intelligent than whites because blacks consistently scored lower on IQ tests. To racists, this seemed reasonable as it "jibed" with how they saw the world.

This has been addressed in another post about cultural understanding of the test questions.


However, as we know, the difference in scores did NOT actually reflect a difference in intelligence or cognitive ability, but rather a cultural bias in the tests themselves. Anyone that concluded that blacks were intellectually inferior based on that data was wrong.

Again, this was addressed in a previous post. However, in the case that you cite, the testing methods of the day were quite skewed in favor of whites. There was very little neutrality when it came to racial differences.

So unless you can show that the current study is intentionally skewed for or against either side of the issue (can you?), then that does not affect the study for or against anyone, and the inaccuracy level plays equally to both sides, neutralizing any concern for skewed findings.


Yes, that difference is marked, even when taking into account the inaccuracies of the test. However, it is far from conclusive that it means that "conservatives" are less intelligent. Far more interesting to me would be to subject those in their 40s to this test.

Now that would be interesting. That is something that should have been done for the study to explore different age range demographics.



Choosing young adults is flawed. People political opinions change as they gain experience.

True, but not universally. I have known people that fit that and about as many that didn't.


Older people tend to be more conservative. Does that mean people tend to get stupid as they age?

I don't know. Come down to South Florida and hang out with the retirees in Boca Raton some time. Then tell me what you think. :bigrin:


I'd posit that a likely explanation of the difference is simple rebellion.

Very possible. But again, not universally true.


More intelligent young adults are more likely to rebel against authority. Those in authority tend to be more conservative, hence the more intelligent youth is more likely to identify as liberal.

That is quite likely, but also remember that those that identify as liberal often become moderate more likely than crossing all the way to conservative.

Of course, when you look at our politicians, there seems to be a predominance of over 55's among the Conservatives and a predominance of under 55's amongst the liberals, while moderates seem to cross the age demographic in both directions. Of course, as before, these are not universal constants either.

It might be interesting to study their individual political alignment histories and apply them to this latest study and see if there is any correlation.


Obviously, I'm not stating this hypothesis with any degree of authority, but it's just as likely a conclusion, barring further evidence, as liberals being more intelligent than conservatives.

Of course not. It is just anecdotal evidence, but the evidence matches your theory or else you wouldn't support it, would you? After all, it makes sense.


I tend to think the average liberal IS more intelligent than the average conservative, but I'm certainly intellectually honest enough not to quote this abortion of research as a basis to support that belief.

If not this study, at least as a baseline to start from, then what would you use?

Like I said, if the tools are not accurate enough, then we need to develop more accurate tools and redo the experiment........which is one of the things that peer review makes happen; over and over again.

We don't draw the conclusion and then find supporting evidence. We look a the findings and draw conclusions from those observations.

What I find to be so amusing is that this would be a non-issue for everyone, except for Rush Limbaugh who would sing it's praises on his show, if the findings were the exact opposite of what they are.

[void()]

I'm not really looking to derail this thread. But I do have a question.
Why are most you speaking/writing stilted? I'm just curious on this end.

[darkeyes]

I'm not really looking to derail this thread. But I do have a question.
Why are most you speaking/writing stilted? I'm just curious on this end.

Is fun.. an annoys peeps...:bigrin:

Seriously tho Voidie.. isn near as annoyin as screeds an screeds replyin 2 replies 2 replies 2 replies broken down inta replies 2 every bloody para a every bloody reply.. makes it easy 2 reply me knos that..but don haff make it shitty 2 read.. an makes things seem longa than they r....an lemme say..a helluva lot more borin...:rolleyes:

*Fran pwomises Voidie she will nev rite in a stilted manna eva 'gain.*

*Un-x's fingies an brings 'em out from behind 'er bak*

[void()]

*ROLMAO*

Sorry. I just saw all the displacement from the subject. It feels to me that folks like to talk around the huge white elephant in the room. In so doing they create a distance which keeps everyone safe and cozy.

I agree we can't argue opinion. There are good reasons for that too.

1. You are not going to alter anyone's opinion.
2. Opinions are just that, same as hypothesis. Both just best guesses in their respective ways.

But if we're all way back here, who has got the helm? Are we so trite and small that we are steered by media? Somehow, I doubt many of us are such.

Yet we put on stilts. Is it to look good, you wear air? I'm sure if we all wore the emporer's new clothes nothing would be solved either. Orgies are a little more fun and visceral, though.

I think someone else says it better and more succinctly.

"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." -- James Dean

In the grand scheme, what do all these dag blasted 'studies' matter to the plate of beans? They probably don't matter a whit. So why keep flogging a dead horse? Get out from behind the wall the stilts build for you, and live.

Yes, I understand this is great advice coming from someone depressed. Please take me with a grain of salt. I get fits of being a curmudgeon and Diogenes of Sinope makes for a good father. In a word, "argh!"

Void grins and wanders along confident no one will find the pizza delivery guy. Void is glad he ordered double everything pizzas, about 100 of them for everyone.

[Donkey_burger]

[snip]

But, I would like to correct your statement. "Intelligence" is not cultural. "Intelligence Tests," however, are VERY cultural. There is almost no way to remove bias from a test of that nature. I think this is what you meant, but not the way you said it. So I thought I would offer this small tweak.
[snip]

Pasa

That's what I meant, actually. IQ is used to measure intelligence. It is patently absurd as it stands.

Thanks for tweaking it, by the way. I have trouble with communication, sometimes.

DB :bipride:

[12voltman59]

I saw something that I did find interesting recently----another "scientific" sort of study--now this one did not say which is better---but according to the study the news article was talking about----using brain scans---researchers found that people who identify as being either conservative or liberal-----their brains operate in slightly different ways.

The gist of the study--and the researchers did say very clearly and the reporter who did the story did note it---the results are very preliminary and do require more study---but this is no different in that the way male and female brains operate have variations as well or other groups for that matter---which is once again--not to say that one way is superior and the other inferior--just that we do have these variations.

I do know---that from my earliest days---I have always considered myself to be a "liberal/progressive" when it comes to most things---I just simply find it nearly impossible to take a "conservative" stance on just about anything----and it seems that those I know who are conservative----feel the same--since reading that story not too long ago----I have been conducting a "survey" of people I know, nearing ten people at this point I have asked---knowing that they are "conservative" or "liberal" already---not getting into politics--I have simply asked them where they think their political/world view comes from--do they think their conservative or liberal nature is intrinsic to their nature??--and most do say that they have pretty well always considered themselves one or the other, try as they may to change their views.

So---based on this very unscientific "study" of my own---I am accepting of the result of that study and think the researchers of that study may be on to something.

If that does hold true---it could very well be that by our fundamental natures--we do tend to be either liberal or conservative, or at least our views, feelings, etc tend to go in one direction or the other.

Now--when it comes to polyamory----in theory--it sounds good--but the reality of that is that I really don't think polyamory is really a viable way for humans to operate--I think it it is damn hard enough to maintain a deep, intimate relationship with one other human being---let alone two, three or more.


The track record of people sustaining polyamory over the long haul----is not good, I have had people I know who tried it and it never worked out well in the end---and I am not talking about breakaway Mormon or African warlord bigamists--they more or less maintain those situations with brute force and coercion, physical and/or mental in nature.


But this is simply my view on this topic----good luck to ya if you think it can work for you--it just doesn't work for me!! I have enough trouble dealing with a relationship with one person at a time----I could not even fathom trying to maintain one that has mulitple partners.

[MarieDelta]

Now--when it comes to polyamory----in theory--it sounds good--but the reality of that is that I really don't think polyamory is really a viable way for humans to operate--I think it it is damn hard enough to maintain a deep, intimate relationship with one other human being---let alone one, two or more.

The track record of people sustaining polyamory over the long haul----is not good--and I am not talking about breakaway Mormon or African warlord bigamists--they more or less maintain those situations with brute force and coercion.

For what its worth, I don't think monogamy works well either.

Just think how many pols, athletes, and others have been caught in scandals involving cheating and sleeping around on their spouses. I know that here on this site we have a number of people on the "down low" who sleep with other members of the same sex without ever revealing to their spouse that they even have an attraction to others of the same sex.

I think if it works for you , fine. But what works for you might not work for me.

[Donkey_burger]

For what its worth, I don't think monogamy works well either.

Just think how many pols, athletes, and others have been caught in scandals involving cheating and sleeping around on their spouses. I know that here on this site we have a number of people on the "down low" who sleep with other members of the same sex without ever revealing to their spouse that they even have an attraction to others of the same sex.
[snip]

I'm not sure if what you're saying is true, Marie. Yes, monogamy works for some, polyamory for others. But what if you have an addiction or compulsion of sorts? Whether it be for sex, or adrenalin, or whatever. What if you are just an abusive sociopath, and you will get what you want, ethics be damned? What if you think you don't deserve to be happy, so you might as well be sneaky about attaining happiness?

As much as I am critical of those who are non-chalent about cheating, I can't help but think what if...

DB :bipride: