Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Scientific Racism and IQ

Image result for Nyborg,Lynn Kanazawa
Nyborg


On Monday I argued that the Atheist IQ axis is also racist I said I would expound upon that contention today,[1] I am not saying that   Atheists in general are racist nor am I saying that anyone who thinks atheists are smarter based upon IQ is a racist but there is a group of atheists IQ experts, academics, who are racists and back each other in their research. They implicate the only major study [Zukerman] backing their hypothesis [that atheists are smarter than believers]. I have been following the gang of racist atheist IQ experts for several years now. On Atheistwatch I've written about the New Attempts of atheists to prove that they have higher IQ's than religious people: Atheism's Psychology Today Scamand, The Atheist IQ Scam (part 1) (see part 2).  I found an article by Andrew Brown in the American Guardian (Andrew Brown's Blog) [2]where he demonstrates the racist background of the atheist assumptions. He also discusses the idea that IQ tests are not measuring intelligence but cultural norms.I don't find that these apostles of "scientific racism" are conected to any loaders of the atheist movement,

Don't expect these guys to be fire-breathing, goose-steeping nasties  zeig-hiling and wearing sheets. They are polite, refined,academic, nice even. I detect no hate in their work, but they are willing to stratify society based upon race,gender, and IQ. Hasn't fearless leader told us there are lovely people among their ranks? The major trinity (Or three stooges?) are Helmuth Nyborg,Professor of Psychology in Denmark, Richard Lynn formerly  of the University of Ulster, and John Hamilton of East Sussex BN7 3HD, England, United Kingdom Together the three did "the nations study[3]which was the other major study (not Zuckerman) discussed by Duffy et al (see Monday's essay). The fourth figure is Satoshi Kanazawa who is the links to the Zuckerman study.


Image result for Nyborg,Lynn Kanazawa
Lynnkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

This is not just me reading in what I want to see there.Others clearly see the racism in their work. 

It turns out that Nyborg is an enthusiast for scientific racism. It's not just believers who are more stupid, in his world: it's black people and women, too. In a collaboration with Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, he measured religiosity against IQ in 137 countries, and concluded that low IQ countries always had higher rates of religion. It's not religion that makes you stupid, he told a Christian paper at the time: but if you live in a very religious country, you are very likely to be stupid. And of course the correlation of religion and poverty is in global terms very clear, while the most religious continent of all is Africa.[4]

Brown quotes Nyborg at length:


The ultimate causal level presumes that geographically separated peoples were subjected to different evolutionary pressures over extended time-periods. Those living under the hardest of evolutionary pressures, in cold or arctic areas, were gradually and over many generations selected for enhanced g (for details of the Climate Theory, see Lynn, 2006; Rushton, 2000). They had to replace ancient pre-rational supernatural beliefs with more effective rational approaches in order to survive under the harsh conditions given. People living in warm or tropical areas enjoyed in general more relaxed selective conditions, and low g individuals were not severely punished, as their survival was not seriously compromised by uncritical reference to ancient supernatural thinking, irrational beliefs in souls, invisible worlds, Gods, forces, angels, devils, hell, or holy spirits. A contemporary belief that supernatural forces control behavior, feelings and thinking is accordingly seen as a reminiscence of pre-historic animism and magical thinking.[5]
Didn't the Vikings have gods? Never mind. Nyborg also argues that immigration from non western continues beings ti bring down the level of intelligence in Western countries,[6] The Danish Committees for Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) ruled against him in the charge of scientific  misconduct but the decision was latter overturned,[7]
Image result for Nyborg,Lynn Kanazawa
Lynn has been found racist he was dismissed from his University for it. "Ullster University has confirmed that they [the UUSU Council ] have stripped now disgraced Professor Richard Lynn of his Emeritus status. With a career spanning over 50 years, Lynn has proven to be one of the most prolific writers and researchers in the study of Eugenics, Dysgenics and Intelligence within the White Nationalist movement."[8] (emphasis mine). He was editor of white supremacist Journal Mankind Quarterly.[9]

I am going to quote from  the segment from my Zuckerman Paper Part 1 where I discuss Kanazwa:


We will focus on Kanazawa because he's going to have a special relationship to the Zuckerman study. Kanazawa assumes the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis which basically implies that atheism is an evolutionary advance. That assumes there's a gene for atheism and and it's a beneficial mutation. That is not only an extreme idea but one we would hard pressed to find much support for in the ranks of modern science (ironic that the head of the genome project was a Christian). [10] Kanazawa has been roundly attacked for making  racist assumptions, for example by PDF by Belayneh Abate who changes biased data collection.

in eleven Sub-Saharan African Countries and the rest was predicted using prediction methods Kawakawa tried to show that the IQ measurement was valid by analyzing the directly and indirectly measured data separately. It is true that no method of measurement is perfectly accurate or precise. However, one has to ask how the samples were drawn, and how the results of the sample IQ’s were translated in to national average. Whether IQ measures general intelligence
or not is another story. For the moment, let’s assume it does. Most IQ tests include both verbal and written tests. How valid will be the IQ test in Sub-Saharan countries where almost all sense organs of the people are turned dysfunctional
by dictator rulers who are supported by major powers of the world? In addition to that, IQ measurement is not entirely objective. Our daily life proves how people are prejudiced towards one another irrespective of educational status.
Therefore, to what extent should we believe the validity of the IQ measurements of Lynn and Vanhanen? What about the possibility of differential misclassification errors in the IQ measurement?[14]
Kanazawa was fired from Psychology Today for these views (and racist implications that brought charges of racism). He was also disciplined by London School of Economics for these implications.  In the oct 22, 2012 post of this blog I wrote:


Unfortuntely Kanazawa plays are more important role than just having his data included as one of 63 studies. He actually performed from some of the statitical analysis that went into the study. A note under "acknowledgements" states:

We thank the investigators who provided additional information about their studies at our request. We are particularly grateful to... Satoshi Kanazawafor performing a number of statistical analyses on his data, andinvariably sending us the results on the same day he received our query.
notes
1. Kanazawa conducted these analyses in response to our request(S. Kanazawa, personal communication, April 2012).2. The formula for correcting
r
for range restriction is (Sackett &Yang, 2000):
-4 scale); standard deviation

I have not reproduced the data in the example as it doesn't copy accurately. But it is listed no page 23 of the study and one can read the formula. This is one example of what they call "a number of statistical analyses." Not only does this raise a red flag in terms of their findings, but raises questions of bias and the author's own identification with the ideological commitments of Kanazawa. While we must be careful to avoid guilt by association, one can't help but wonder why they would allow him to be the one to contribute that analysis? While that is not proof off any kind of wrong doing, it must raise a caution.
Over all the argument is that the data from before the "humanistic era" of counter culture (60s-70s) and after that era are both suspect. Of course that's  a two edged sword. They might argue that the data from the 60s is biased the other way. It would seem the study methodology is better in that era since Kanazawa didn't get his data originally but used that provided by Nyborg et al. Nyborg's data is suspect (see FN 12 below). Nyborg's data is also criticized most seriously by William T. Dickens and James R. Flynn (Brookings institution). [12] Nyborg quotes Lynn and Lynn uses Hamilton and both use Knazawa and he uses them. It's a citation circle and it's all based upon genetic superiority (echoed in the Psychology today blog with Barber and Kanazawa) and it links genetic superiority to atheism. It's clearly the outlines of a massive ideology based upon some unsavory ideas that represents the basis of IQ/Religion research in the first decade of the century and the Zuckerman study is plugged right into it. It may not mean that Zuckerman is based and I'm certainly not trying to tar him with the same brush in racist terms, but it has to effect his data not only he uses the studies but the guy who did one  of them contributed to his statical analysis. 
There we have to ask do they have a way to really fail safe themselves against the possibility of dogmatic bias? They think they do becuase they say the have statistical means of overcoming bias. But can they really do that when the is at such a fundamental level their very definition of religion? Many of the studies going into their analysis are seen as bad. Can they make up for that?


Data Collection Problem: Kanazawa admits borrowing secondary data from different places. He borrowed the IQ data from Lynn (Northern Ireland) and Vanhanen (Finland) Table-1. According to him, IQ was directly measured only

Kanazawa is a reader in management at the London School of Economics, he has set him about the task of doing battle with what he calls "political correctness." He bases his theoretical orientation in evolutionary psychology. Meaning, behind his assumptions lurk the dragon of sociolo biology, so we should suspect a link to the "Bell Curve" sort of thinking. LSE has forbade him to publish in non peer reviewed sources for a year as a result of the controversy surrounding his work.(BBC News London He was fired from Psychology Today for the Blog (which I criticized on Atheistwatch) "psychology today," it was Savanna principle primarily that got him the sack (Colorofchagne.org, changing the color of Democracy June 1, 211).






These guys have their defenders, many academics have argue that they are just data alliterates, It seems Nyborg might have this excuse but Lynn is more actively identified with whiten nationalism.[13] Kanazawa has been more offensive and sense he did statistical analysis for Zuckerman I would think the only major study for the Negatuve religion IQ hypothesis hypothesis suspect, I think the the real alarm bell to sound is that guanine racism now has a clear nice kind happy face,


The thing is it;s one thing to say the data really does show intellectual decline in correlation with migration from non western countries  that us just literal obedience to the scientific  data, That is the defense of Nyborg. Yes but that;s not enough to just leave hanging,We must also discuss what it means in relation to cultural assumptions and what IQ really proves.






Sorces and Notes


[1]https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2019/02/when-smart-is-stupid-atheist-iq-scam.html [accessed 3/26/19][2]Andrew Brown "Science proves Anglicans Smartest," Andrew Brown's Blog. published by The Guradian, (Dec. 19,2008)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/dec/19/religion-iq-atheism [accessed 3/26/19]
[3]Richard Lynn a, ⁎, John Harvey b , Helmuth Nyborg c Average intelligence predicts atheism rates across 137 nations, Intelligence, Eksevier, (April 29,2008)
http://misc.tets.cz/science_iq_atheism.pdf  
[accessed 2/.23/19]

[4] Brown "Science proves Anglicans Smartest..." op cit.
[5] Ibid
[6] Helmuth  Nyborg,  "The decay of Western civilization: Double relaxed Darwinian selection". Personality and Individual Differences53 (2):(2012) 118–125. 
[7] 


[8]Editer, "Elucive: White Nationalist Ulster Professor Stripped of Title "  The last Round, editorak team:Tyler McNally (@TyTLR)Conor McFall  (@ConorMcFall)Chloe Gault (@Chloe Gault) (April 13, 2018)
https://lastroundblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/13/exclusive-white-nationalist-ulster-professor-stripped-of-title-tyler-mcnally/
[acessed 2/26/19]

[9] Quarterly, Mankind. "Mankind Quarterly – About"mankindquarterly.org. Retrieved 2016-02-04.; Joe L. Kincheloe, et. al, Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined, Palgrave Macmillan, 1997, p. 39

[10] Atheist Watch, "Atheism's Psychology Today Scam," (Oct 3, 2010) http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2010/10/atheisms-psychology-today-scam.htmlaccessed 8/12/13

[11] Belayneh Abate "Poisoned with defective theories, Kanazawa Insults Others “Mentally Retarded”pdf (10/10/2006)http://addisvoice.com/article/kanazawa.pdf accessed 8/12/13
[12] Willam T. Dickens and James R. Flynn, "common Ground and Differences," pdf http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2006/10/affirmativeaction%20dickens/20060619_response.pdf  accessed 8/12/13.

fn 10-12 numbered 13,14,15 in the original paper
.
New Zuckerman IQ study art 1
http://bogusatheistsocialscience.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-zuckerman-iq-study-are-atheist.html

[13] a dialogue on You Tube between Nyborg and another academic showing what a nice guy he is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJSKsTRANOUl ;

Helmuth Nyborg gets Watson'd, by James Thompson - The Unz Review





12 comments:

im-skeptical said...

group of atheists IQ experts, academics, who are racists and back each other in their research.
- Three people, as far as I know, and we don't need to pay attention to them.

They implicate the only major study [Zukerman] backing their hypothesis [that atheists are smarter than believers].
- This is a lie, plain and simple. Zuckerman did a meta-analysis (do you even know what that means?) of 63 independent studies, the majority of which contribute to the statistically significant a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, which is accepted as the scientific consensus. Zuckerman is NOT the only researcher who makes this conclusion. Zuckerman's general correlation has been confirmed independently. There have also been other studies by other people that also contribute to what is this well-established scientific consensus. And that holds true even if you disregard all the work of those three racists.

The problem with your own analyses (found on the AtheistWatch hate site) is your own bias. You only find the information you are looking for. If you are searching for reasons to discredit the scientific consensus, you can find that. You can point to these three guys whose work is suspect due to their racism. You can point to problems in measuring intelligence. But you completely ignore reasons for accepting the scientific consensus. For example, if you look at a country-by-country analysis, where there are racial differences between counties, you might have a legitimate claim that the religion-intelligence correlation contains an inherent racial factor. But OTHER STUDIES eliminate that component by analyzing the data within countries, or even within racial groups. The statistical correlation remains valid. Furthermore, those same studies tend to eliminate cultural differences that might affect intelligence testing.

The fact is that the religiosity-intelligence relationship has been sliced and diced against numerous other variables besides race, and in general it still holds up. Your denial of the science only reveals your own bias.

And there is one more point that I tried to stress before. This statistical correlation is not equivalent to a statement that religious people are stupid. For all I know, the smartest person in the world might very well be religious. I don't know, and the correlation doesn't tell us that.

Joe Hinman said...

Blogger im-skeptical said...
group of atheists IQ experts, academics, who are racists and back each other in their research.

- Three people, as far as I know, and we don't need to pay attention to them.


first I talked at length about four not three, Nyborb, Hamilton, Lynn and Kanazawa, there are others too numerous to mention they are a movement they have an influence it's not smart to ignore it

They implicate the only major study [Zukerman] backing their hypothesis [that atheists are smarter than believers].


- This is a lie, plain and simple. Zuckerman did a meta-analysis (do you even know what that means?) of 63 independent studies, the majority of which contribute to the statistically significant a negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence, which is accepted as the scientific consensus.

yes it's true Zuckerman's study consisted of a combined analysis of the other studies those obviously existed before his. I am saying his is the only major study of that body of evidence, most of the studies he looked at were poorly done. They mostly sucked. the only other meta analysis of that same body of work since his is Nyborg et al. There is no meta analysis of that work not touched the raciial bias.


Zuckerman is NOT the only researcher who makes this conclusion. Zuckerman's general correlation has been confirmed independently.

by who? I asked you before you only gave the Duffy arithmetic the Duffy showed the inky ones are the two I just named, there are other backing studies but they are not meta analysts and some are by racists such as Duttin.


There have also been other studies by other people that also contribute to what is this well-established scientific consensus. And that holds true even if you disregard all the work of those three racists.

Most o those are by racists, those are not good tidies,



Joe Hinman said...

The problem with your own analyses (found on the AtheistWatch hate site) is your own bias.

calling it a hate site is really stupid mistake; exploiting other people's hate is not hate. the atheist movement is swathing with hatred.

You only find the information you are looking for. If you are searching for reasons to discredit the scientific consensus, you can find that. You can point to these three guys whose work is suspect due to their racism. You can point to problems in measuring intelligence. But you completely ignore reasons for accepting the scientific consensus.

you are going to have to document that the scientific consensus accepts that absenteeism is smarter and Christians are stupid, so far the only people i see who say that are basing it on Zuckerman You must show not only that it is consensus but that it's not based upon that one study a consensus based upon a lie is bull shit.


For example, if you look at a country-by-country analysis, where there are racial differences between counties, you might have a legitimate claim that the religion-intelligence correlation contains an inherent racial factor. But OTHER STUDIES eliminate that component by analyzing the data within countries, or even within racial groups. The statistical correlation remains valid. Furthermore, those same studies tend to eliminate cultural differences that might affect intelligence testing.

so you back the racist assumption I thought you would. but you don;t have the scientific acumen to check for cultural relativity,

The fact is that the religiosity-intelligence relationship has been sliced and diced against numerous other variables besides race, and in general it still holds up. Your denial of the science only reveals your own bias.

these guys are not saying christians are studio because they are black they think white Christina are stupid too. thy have studies that do not deal with race, but most of the studies do showing the idea thiat atheists are smarter were bad,studies showing the oppose had better samples and bigger staples.

Leslie Francis did two studies showing religious people have higher IQs.Those two had huge stat bases and representative samples across Europe, They were better studies not the only two. in fact Nyborg's own data puts Jews and Anglicans ahead of atheists in intellect,Anglicans are the smartest.


And there is one more point that I tried to stress before. This statistical correlation is not equivalent to a statement that religious people are stupid. For all I know, the smartest person in the world might very well be religious. I don't know, and the correlation doesn't tell us that.

you say that but i don;t believe it, you have to get over this notion that I only write for you.

1:04 PM Delete

im-skeptical said...

first I talked at length about four not three
- So ignore all of them.

yes it's true Zuckerman's study consisted of a combined analysis of the other studies those obviously existed before his. I am saying his is the only major study of that body of evidence, most of the studies he looked at were poorly done. They mostly sucked. the only other meta analysis of that same body of work since his is Nyborg et al. There is no meta analysis of that work not touched the raciial bias.
- That's not true. I cited another meta-analysis that re-confirmed the general result of Zuckerman. I cited other studies. The idea that all of these results are tainted by racism is a lie. First, many of them had no involvement by those individuals. Second, nobody has demonstrated that the the work of those individuals is not valid. But it doesn't matter. if you ignore what racists have done, the result is still largely the same.

by who? I asked you before you only gave the Duffy arithmetic the Duffy showed
I gave you multiple citations. You ignored all of it.

Most o those are by racists, those are not good tidies
- Bullshit, Joe. The negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence is widely accepted. It's scientific consensus. Anf YOU are NOT the arbiter of what constitutes a good scientific study.

calling it a hate site is really stupid mistake; exploiting other people's hate is not hate. the atheist movement is swathing with hatred.
- Atheism Watch is a hate site. Your "analysis" is totally biased.

you are going to have to document that the scientific consensus accepts that absenteeism is smarter and Christians are stupid
- Nobody says that, Joe. I keep trying to tell you that, and you refuse to listen.

these guys are not saying christians are studio because they are black they think white Christina are stupid too. thy have studies that do not deal with race, but most of the studies do showing the idea thiat atheists are smarter were bad,studies showing the oppose had better samples and bigger staples.
- Joe, you refuse to read or listen to anything that doesn't confirm your own idiotic beliefs. YOU ARE WRONG.

Leslie Francis did two studies showing religious people have higher IQs.Those two had huge stat bases and representative samples across Europe, They were better studies not the only two. in fact Nyborg's own data puts Jews and Anglicans ahead of atheists in intellect,Anglicans are the smartest.
- OK. Nobody is saying that all studies produce the same results. The consensus is based on the preponderance of data. And I find it quite ironic that you are so dismissive of a racist when you don't like his results, but you readily accept on his results when you do like them.

Joe Hinman said...

irst I talked at length about four not three
- So ignore all of them.

yes it's true Zuckerman's study consisted of a combined analysis of the other studies those obviously existed before his. I am saying his is the only major study of that body of evidence, most of the studies he looked at were poorly done. They mostly sucked. the only other meta analysis of that same body of work since his is Nyborg et al. There is no meta analysis of that work not touched the raciial bias.

- That's not true. I cited another meta-analysis that re-confirmed the general result of Zuckerman.

the only article I saw you refer to is Duffy. in all the stuff I;ve read I see no other mneta analysis,so name it, give me a link


I cited other studies. The idea that all of these results are tainted by racism is a lie. First, many of them had no involvement by those individuals. Second, nobody has demonstrated that the the work of those individuals is not valid. But it doesn't matter. if you ignore what racists have done, the result is still largely the same.

the only studies I see you dealing with are in the Duffy article none of them are major, many of then do not back Zuckermamn. you haveno other study thatisonthe leelof Zickerman

by who? I asked you before you only gave the Duffy arithmetic the Duffy showed
I gave you multiple citations. You ignored all of it.



Most o those are by racists, those are not good tidies


- Bullshit, Joe. The negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence is widely accepted. It's scientific consensus. Anf YOU are NOT the arbiter of what constitutes a good scientific study.

Widley accept based upon Zucker man which is tainted. all the one;s you mention go back to Zuckerman via Duffy nless you give me a sorce other than Duffy

yo cant even tag studies with their author names?


Joe Hinman said...

calling it a hate site is really stupid mistake; exploiting other people's hate is not hate. the atheist movement is swathing with hatred.


- Atheism Watch is a hate site. Your "analysis" is totally biased.

I don;t think you have the slightest idea what a hate site is, AW analyzed and defined hate group segment of the ahteist moment and dispassionately alkalized their hate appeal. they could not stand it exposing their hate to the light made them freak.,

you are going to have to document that the scientific consensus accepts that absenteeism is smarter and Christians are stupid


- Nobody says that, Joe. I keep trying to tell you that, and you refuse to listen.


so dishonest,you know it is, you know you think Christians are stupid, you flying to a range if bested by a Christian.

these guys are not saying christians are studio because they are black they think white Christina are stupid too. thy have studies that do not deal with race, but most of the studies do showing the idea thiat atheists are smarter were bad,studies showing the oppose had better samples and bigger staples.

even I think many Christians are stupid, stop hiding fron the truth,

- Joe, you refuse to read or listen to anything that doesn't confirm your own idiotic beliefs. YOU ARE WRONG.

look who is talking, you never read anything all the way.It's stupid to say that Have you read Nyborg?

Are you defending Nyborg,Hamilton,Lynn and kaanzawa?


Leslie Francis did two studies showing religious people have higher IQs.Those two had huge stat bases and representative samples across Europe, They were better studies not the only two. in fact Nyborg's own data puts Jews and Anglicans ahead of atheists in intellect,Anglicans are the smartest.


- OK. Nobody is saying that all studies produce the same results. The consensus is based on the preponderance of data. And I find it quite ironic that you are so dismissive of a racist when you don't like his results, but you readily accept on his results when you do like them.


what? Do you think Francis is in the movement with Lynn and Nyborg not at all he;s not fron their group.He's not an atheists, idd that you said that because I haven;t used any of their data. When I talk about the pro Christian studies are better it;s based upon smaires of the studies found on an atheist website long before Zuckerman stdy existed, That;s what I see when I say the studies Zucieran looked at sucked.

a bunch of those are named by Zuckerman. That research showed 17 studies that opposed the hypothsis and six that supported it those six sucked as studies it was true basedupon that.

im-skeptical said...

Joe, you're a science denier. Plain and simple. It's not difficult to find TONS of scientific research that proves my point. You just keep harping on a few individuals to discredit all the rest of the work that has been done. I'll put this to rest now, because your ignorance has become extremely tiresome. But first, let me cite a few findings.

Ganzach and Gotlibovski (2013)
"First, we examine how between-siblings differences in intelligence are related to differences in their religiosity. Second, we examine how intelligence is related to changes in religiosity over time. The results of both designs suggest that intelligence has a strong negative effect on religiosity. In addition, our results also suggest that intelligence interacts with age in determining religiosity: the more intelligent the person, the stronger the negative effect of age on religiosity."

Sacher (2015)
"a relatively strong negative relationship was observed between the transcendent factor of the SWBQ [Spiritual Well Being Questionnaire] – the factor most closely associated with notions of a God, religion, or religiosity – and intelligence. This finding supports the hypothesis and suggests that perhaps it is the notion of a God or other sentient being that is driving or inflating the widely observed negative relationship between self-rated religiosity and intelligence."

Stoet and Geary (2107)
"We found that higher levels of religiosity (at national level) were associated with lower educational performance in science and mathematics (rs ranging from −0.65 to −0.74)."

Well, Duh.

Joe Hinman said...

Joe, you're a science denier. Plain and simple. It's not difficult to find TONS of scientific research that proves my point.

You the science denier Skep. Science begins with investigation for yourself not merely being told what to think. That's what you are doing. You want experts to tell you what to think through studies you do not have the guts to criticize.

I went and looked the studies and found the mistakes, I have far better command of the facts than you. you can't name any study the only study you offered is shot down by my criticism. You can;t even see the importance of expensive fascism that is disguised as science I think you are afraid to criticize Nyborg et al you think they have the rank do scientist so you dare not oppose them.,that's not science it;s worship.



You just keep harping on a few individuals to discredit all the rest of the work that has been done.

what work" how is it then that those guys were possessed by their own universities and by science people on committees in Europe? You are not a thinker, you don;'t know science you are a worshiper. waiting to be told what to believe


I'll put this to rest now, because yo

I shot down the studies,you do;t know one study from another,you didn;t really read Duffy you don;t know what the studies to which you refer really say. YOu are afraid to think for yourself

Ganzach and Gotlibovski (2013)
"First, we examine how between-siblings differences in intelligence are related to differences in their religiosity. Second, we examine how intelligence is related to changes in religiosity over time. The results of both designs suggest that intelligence has a strong negative effect on religiosity. In addition, our results also suggest that intelligence interacts with age in determining religiosity: the more intelligent the person, the stronger the negative effect of age on religiosity."

Sacher (2015)
"a relatively strong negative relationship was observed between the transcendent factor of the SWBQ [Spiritual Well Being Questionnaire] – the factor most closely associated with notions of a God, religion, or religiosity – and intelligence. This finding supports the hypothesis and suggests that perhaps it is the notion of a God or other sentient being that is driving or inflating the widely observed negative relationship between self-rated religiosity and intelligence."

Stoet and Geary (2107)
"We found that higher levels of religiosity (at national level) were associated with lower educational performance in science and mathematics (rs ranging from −0.65 to −0.74)."

Well, Duh.

That just says education levels can can down on the level of religiosity. I agree. That neither means some groups smarter nor does it mean one position is true more than other, education can make us more critical of what we are doing but then youhave to ask how do they define religiosity?

Joe Hinman said...

Skep if atheists are smarter tell me why the majority of professors believe in God? why do the majority of people with sickness degrees believe in God?

Joe Hinman said...

Alan Lightman, Origins: The Lives and World of Modern Cosmologists. Cambridge Mass.:Harvard University press, 1999).

"It is not a foregone conclusion to assume that most physical scientist are atheists. That statistic is more limited to the NAS rather than all scinece degree holders.If Church attendance is a measure of belief science degree holders are morel likely to go to church than are non science degree holders: "The scientific fraternity conducted a poll and found that on any given Sunday 46% of Ph.D. holders in science can be found in church. That compares with 47% for the general population."


Yeaton and Wortman show us that meta-analysis is a newly popular method that lacks sufficient standards.[13] People are getting carried way with it and trying to make it do all kinds of things. One of the major problems seen by this fascination with the new statistician's toy is that it can be used to mask the problems of individual studies by hiding hem in the statistics of a group of studies. That sounds like the old trick of grading on a curve to get the class average up.


Meta-analysis on in the social sciences typically report findings on a side range of independent and dependent variables providing a single mean overall reliability score at best.This practice masks the unreliability of individual variables especially those used to calculate measures of effect size that are critical to inference about treatment effectiveness.[14]
It's not just masking individual studies but whole variables One variable that is obviously masked by Dutton and Lynn is IQ as a predictor of intelligence. This has been criticized, along with their whole data gathering procedure. Flaherty quotes two critics:

Elaine Howard Ecklund, a professor of sociology at Rice University who co-wrote the 2007 study on religion and science professors at 21 elite U.S. research institutions that is key to Dutton’s argument, said via email that she also was “pretty unimpressed by the methods used in this work to access intelligence. It seems sensationalist rather than scholarly.”
Drawing lines between the data to make conclusions about intelligence and religious and political life is “not so simple,” she said."

[13] William H. Yeaton and Paul M. Wortman, "on The Reliability of Metanalycial Reviews: The Role of Inter-coder Agreement" 1993 Pdf http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/67840/10.1177_0193841X9301700303.pdf?sequence=2
William H. Yeaton, Ph.D. in Psychology, works as independent consultant on study methodology. U. of Michigan, Paul M. Wortman,Ph.D. psychology, State University of New York Stony Brook.

[14] Ibid.

Joe Hinman said...




The intelligentsia (Professors) are religious

Gallup surveys found show that "professors are almost as likely to express a belief in God as are Americans as a whole." (1997 N.Y. Times News Service). A more recent study that was much more in depth supports very similar conclusions. Neil Gross (Harvard) and Solon Simmons (George Mason)

Minding the Campus
The study of 1500 college professors at twenty top institutions that grant bachelors degrees, conducted by Neil Gross (Harvard) and Solon Simmons (George Mason), did indeed find that a slight majority claims to be religious. The numbers, not listed in the Sun, showed that 35.7 percent say "I know God really exists and I have no doubt about it," while 16.9 percent reported "while I have my doubts, I feel I do believe in God." Atheists and agnostics accounted for 23.4 percent of professors reporting. The most heavily religious professors in the study teach accounting, followed by professors of elementary education, finance, marketing, art and criminal justice. The least religious professors were in biology, psychology, economics, political science and computer science. Research-oriented professors and faculty at elite institutions are significantly less religious than other academics. Only twenty percent of these academics "have no doubt that God exists." The implications for the larger culture of these findings are crucial. Professors who are the least religious and most hostile to religion are the ones most likely to be writing textbooks, articles and monographs, and the ones whose opinions are most sought after by the media. It is these ideas of irreligious professors that carry the most prestige among the punditocracy, dominate elite discourse, and filter down to the general public. Liberal arts professors are much less likely than accounting professors to believe in God. The liberal arts and social science professors are the ones who most often express opinions on religion and deal with issues involving religion and morality in the classroom.
The pie chart at the top is a graphic depicting the findings of that very study. The most heavily religious in the study were marketing and criminal justice, the least were biology, psychology and computer science. The atheist spread is a litter in elite research universities but still not that from 50-50. Of the elites who teach graduate students in elite research institutions about 36% atheist or agnostic,33% believe in God, 27% believe in a higher power of some kind. So when we take them all the believers together that's actually 60% not atheist, who are willing to believe in God in some sense.

Don't think the really intellectual professors are all atheists and the business professors and athletics coaches are the theists. One of the major atheist philosophers affirms that his discipline has been taken over by theists.

Joe Hinman said...

Pie chart mentioned above, More professors are religious