Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Scientific Racism and IQ

Image result for Nyborg,Lynn Kanazawa

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

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.
1. Kanazawa conducted these analyses in response to our request(S. Kanazawa, personal communication, April 2012).2. The formula for correcting
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)
[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. 

[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)
[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

[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

Sunday, February 24, 2019

When "Smart" is Stupid: The Atheist IQ Scam

Image result for IQ bell curve

Atheists have been making the IQ argument for Some Time. They are still making it. The idea that atheists tend to score higher on IQ tests than theists is widely accepted in social sciences but it is not generally known how much atheist activists have contributed to the research.  There is one major study, using meta analysis, that establishes the overall correlation the  most corroboration is from minor studies. When that major study first came out, the study by Miron Zuckerman, I gave a two part devastating critique.[1] Not only do my original criticisms still hold but there is still no real groundswell but only the assumptions of atheists whose support is more ideological than scholarly.

Gregory Webster and Ryan Duffy, at first glance,  seem  to list other major studies that corroborate but in reality,However,  Zuckerman and Lynn et al are the only two they name that actually deal with IQ and religious belief.[2]The only other major study they cite is one by Lynn, Harvey, &; Nyborg [3]it's also about nations and IQ it is also racist and it has fundamental link to Zuckerman because a racist cronie of Nyborg's did the statistical analysis for Zuckerman [4] I will have more on the racist connection on Wednesday. Webster and Duffy, on the other hand, are not that supportive. First, they say, " we analyzed Zuckerman et al.'s meta-analysis, and after controlling for sample differences, the negative intelligence–religiosity link declined over time. The intelligence–religiosity link was non-significant among samples using men, pre-college participants, grade point average, and those collected after 2010. Education also partially mediated the intelligence–religiosity link" (Notice the title, "Losing faith in the intelligence religiosity link..."[5] that does not mean losing faith in a correlation that smart people are religious because there was no  such assertion). What all that means is the longer the research goes on the more uncertain Zuckerman's findings appear. 

Secondly,  "though the  negative intelligence–religiosity link appears more robust across people than countries, multiple variables moderate or mediate its strength, and hence, limit its generalizability across time, space, samples, measures, and levels of analysis."[6] In other words Zuckerman et al follow the link of religiosity and IQ as   manifest though people,and Nyborg et al follow it as manifest via  nations, The former  is a stronger correlation but multiple factors make it less  a meaningful concept for social analysis.  

Emma Yong says:

 Of course, there are examples of extremely intelligent individuals with strong religious convictions. But various studies have found that, on average, belief in God is associated with lower scores on IQ tests.[Zuckerman] “It is well established that religiosity correlates inversely with intelligence,” note Richard Daws and Adam Hampshire at Imperial College London, in new paper published in Frontiers in Psychology, which seeks to explore why.[7]
In saying "Manystudies" she only references Zuckerman, He does use other studies but if the reader consults fn 1 that is  problematic. She appeals  to Daws and Hampshire as a minor corroboration That is not a big help for the hypothesis, so not so well established after all.  Then we see the result of Nyborg;s racist propaganda, Young says  "It’s a question with some urgency – the proportion of people with a religious belief is growing: by 2050, if current trends continue, people who say they are not religious will make up only 13 per cent of the global population. Based on the low-IQ-religiosity link, it could be argued that humanity is on course to become collectively less smart."[8] That says religion is going up where was that last week? It includes the world population thus third world. The problem here is Yong just said we may be making a lot more stupid people but she's actually speaking of Africans.That's one major point of increase in Christian compilation. Not to imply that Young is racist but it seems the racist implication is hanging over her position. That the Nyborg faction has engineered the discussion.

Daws and Hampshire wind up attacking  intuition by way of explanation, Religious people tend to be stupid because they rely upon intuition for religious thinking. rather than reason., In one paper I've done we see intuition be pointed to as the basis of religion. They produce no data,  nor can it be made to serve   as the clown's mistake atheists would have it be. While I would not rely upon intuition  to do my taxes, there are times when it may help. In battle, for example, when you need split second decisions and no time to think it might not hurt to be in touch with your intuitive sense. The major answer here is they never produce any data to show why intuition is the basis of religious  belief.[9]I suspect it's because they really believe religion is just about feelings. That's an academic sounding way of saying compare stupid feelings (religion) to smart ideas (science).

Daws and Hampshire really demonstrate the total insufficiency of methodological constructs in researching this topic. Their method:
To investigate, Daws and Hampshire surveyed more than 63,000 people online, and had them complete a 30-minute set of 12 cognitive tasks that measured planning, reasoning, attention and working memory. The participants also indicated whether they were religious, agnostic or atheist.As predicted, the atheists performed better overall than the religious participants, even after controlling for demographic factors like age and education.[10]
That might Just prove nothing more than the idea that atheists have better computer skills.

They test the atheist on something something they are good  at and like and passing it off as intelligence.That highlights the problem. As I argue in my forthcoming book, God.Science, and Ideology, this is he illusion of technique. Intelligence is the ability to manipulate data and material for ideological purposes. Notice we never see a study that measures   intelligence by reflective thinking or in knowledge  of the works of James Joyce. Those are certainly things that require intelligence, But social  scientists don't value that kind of intelligence they only value   the kind of intelligence they  use in their  jobs.

Edward Dutton, and his co-author, Dimitri Van der Linden,  reference Zuckerman, still the only major study I  Duttin and Van der Linden set out to explain the correlation between smart people and skepticism and stupid people and religious belief, [11]  Their explanation goes something like this: "Religion is an instinct people who raise above their instincts are smarter than those who can;t." The fact that there were studies showing religious people were smarter and there were sine that showed that liberal theology people were as as smarty as atheists  ignored, not part of Zuckerman;s study.Their definition of intelligence: "Intelligence — in rationally solving problems — can be understood as involving overcoming instinct and being intellectually curious and thus open to non instinctive possibilities.:;'[12]

The problem there is they assume religious belief is just instinctive while in reality it involves five years in seminary. One could beehive in God and still find religious belief to be primitively based yet having evolved with Huang culture theology is far more than a bundle of instinct but involves as much intellect as mathematics, This our authors don't plain the correlation. In fact it's still an open question if it holds because Zuckerman did not include those studies that contradict  the thesis. Dutten and Van der Linden's conclusions are ope to many such possibilities.

In the days before Zickerman I responded to an atheist website and looked up a number of his studies,I had 17 studies 6 were supportive of the opposite hypothesis (that religious believers are smarter ) and the rest were too veg to call. That was possessed to six studies that supported the hypothesis (religious = stupid). 17 to 6  agaisnt the hypothesis, and the only one of those studies Zcukerman uses he uses wrong: 

Several studies that I know are positive in correlation are not found in the Zuckerman study:no Simington, no Pratt, no Rummell, no Corey. All of these are found in the list by Steve Kangus (the atheist list) (see Note 17 on my FN1 part 1). Using his list (some of this were put in the wrong category) I have 6 negative (that high IQ not religious) vs. 17 either positive (High IQ are religious) or no correlation. Yet Rathi counts only 10 that dont' support Zuckerman's correlation. That means somewhere seven studies at least are being overlooked. Francis says in his first study that the  greater number was with the negative. That doesn't mean the quality studies were negative. So even though it may be that the majority of studies find negative correlation, that doesn't prove that this is the answer. The studies left out (I know there are more than 10 that are not in line with the negative) are conspicuous by their absence. Lesley Francis did a fine study that supported the pro religious view. His methodology was fine but before that most of the negative studies were horrible in methodology. They had smaller samples and not representative samples.  

Zuckerman et al says the reason for leaving studies out is:

Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they examined the relation between intelligence and religiosity at the individual level, and if the effect size (Pearson r) of that relation was provided directly or could be computed from other statistics. For several studies, intelligence and religiosity were measured, but the authors did not report the relation between these two variables. Authors of such studies were contacted to obtain the relevant information. If authors did not respond to our first request, two more reminders were sent. When necessary, second and/or third coauthors were also contacted. Studies that examined the relation between intelligence and religiosity indirectly (e.g., comparisons atgroup levels, comparisons between scientists and the general population) were excluded.;[13]
Simington seems to report it. What he says does not wash because I checked the sample sizes The pro religious studies had larger samples. [14] 

Before closing I really  should question once more the very concept being measured by IQ,  The entire part 2 of my Zuckerman article is about this topic, (see FN1). There is no standard definition of intelligence:

What exactly is intelligence? While intelligence is one of the most talked about subjects in psychology, there is no standard definition of what exactly constitutes ntelligence. Some researchers have suggested that intelligence is a single, general ability, while others believe that intelligence encompasses a range of aptitudes, skills, and talents.Intelligence has been an important and controversial topic throughout psychology's history. Despite the substantial interest in the subject, there is still considerable disagreement about what components make up intelligence. In addition to questions of exactly how to define intelligence, the debate continues today about whether accurate measurements are even possible.[15]
Atheists tend to be drawing from the ranks of scientific/mathematical/mechanical types. They are lauding their  kind of thinking as all there is to intelligence. A list of researchers who defimne intelligence differently: 

Neisser, Ulrich; Boodoo, Gwyneth; Bouchard, Thomas J.; Boykin, A. Wade; Brody, Nathan; Ceci, Stephen J.; Halpern, Diane F.; Loehlin, John C.; Perloff, Robert; Sternberg, Robert J.; Urbina, Susana (1996). "Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns" (PDF)American Psychologist51 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.51.2.77ISSN 0003-066X. Retrieved 9 October2014.[16]

 IQ is not a concrete  measurement but an abstraction.[17] Religiosity is complex and consists of multiple forms many of which involve intelligence to understand,[18] Theology proper requires as much intelligence as science,Atheists are merely imposing their favorite thing, Trying to base the truth of the cosmos upon on something like IQ is probably a sign of stupidity in itself.

Sources and Notes

[1] Joseph Hinman,"New Zuckerman IQ Study: Are Atheist Smarter? Part 1" The Religious a Priopri, Social Sciences (Monday, August 19, 2013)

;Zuckerman IQ study part 2: The Case Against IQ, The Religious a Priopri, Social Sciences (Monday, August 19, 2013)

[parts 1 and 2 accessed 2/.23/19]

[2]Gregory Webster and Ryan D. Duffy,"Losing faith in the intelligence–religiosity link: New evidence for a decline effect, spatial dependence, and mediation by education and life quality." Research Gate abstract. inIntelligence 55 · April 2016with 87 Reads
[accessed 2/.23/19]

[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] "New Zuckerman IQ Study: Are Atheist Smarter? Part 1" op cit

[5] Webster and Duffy, "Losing faith in the intelligence–religiosity link: op cit

[6] Ibid

[7]Emma young, "Are Religious People Really Less Smart, on Average. Than Atheists." Research Digest, British Psychological Society (Jan 26/2018)
[access  2/23/19]

[8] Ibid. 

[9] Josrph Hinman,"Is Belief in God Magical Thinking?" (Dec 6,2017)
[access  2/23/19]

[10] Emma Young ""Are Religious People Really Less Smart, on Average. ..." op cit

[access  2/23/19]

Edward Dutton, a research fellow at the Ulster Institute for Social Research in the United Kingdom,

Dimitri Van der Lindenan assistant professor of psychology at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands,

[12] Ibid

[13]Miron Zuckerman, Jordon Silberman, and Judith Hall, "The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations." Personality and Social Psychology Review. Sage Publications (August 6, 2013 online first version of record); Zuckerman on pib Med
[access  2/23/19]

[14] Joseph Hinman, Atheist IQ scam,religioius a priori, 2009

[15]Kendra Cherry "Theories of Intelligence In Psychology," Very Well Mind (October 12, 2018)
https://www.verywellmind.com/theories-of-intelligence-2795035  [access  2/24/19]

[16] Wikipedia, "Religiosity and Intelligence,"  srr FN 1
[access  2/24/19]

[17]  Richard Haier, The Neuroscience of Intelligence. Cambridge University Press.(2016-12-28) pp. 18–19. ISBN 9781107461437.

[18] Barbara Holdcroft,  "What is Religiosity?". Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice10 (1): (September 2006).89–103.