Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ.

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#1 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

Here you go folks. I proposed this earlier but people denied. Now there's evidence.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/26/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence/index.html

Avatar image for deactivated-5a79221380856
deactivated-5a79221380856

13125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 deactivated-5a79221380856
Member since 2007 • 13125 Posts

As I said on OT, according to this, I'm half an idiot.

However, even if liberals have higher IQs than conservatives, that does not make conservatism wrong. Even if atheists have higher IQs, that does not mean there is no god.

By the way, what's "male sexual exclusivity"?

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#3 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

As I said on OT, according to this, I'm half an idiot.

However, even if liberals have higher IQs than conservatives, that does not make conservatism wrong. Even if atheists have higher IQs, that does not mean there is no god.

By the way, what's "male sexual exclusivity"?

Genetic_Code

Done take my word for it but I think it's "being commited with one sexual partner" and the more exclusivity the more the chances of it.

I am not sure though if the lack of it implies cheating or just openly practicing polygomy.

Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say.CNN

Yeah, I think we're done here. 6-11 points isn't even a full standard deviation on IQ curves which means that while the finding may be statistically significant, in reality it has no effect.

This reminds me of studies done where researchers showed that girls scored higher on tests than boys. While the finding was statistically significant the effect size was pathetic. The two bell curves for boys' scores and girls' overlapped each other almost completely. However, this didn't stop idiot news reporters from proclaiming "girls smarter than boys" and idiot school administrators using the findings to segregate classes because they thought that girls and boys learned differently.

This is why behavioral scientists (well, the good ones anyway) have stopped looking at only p-values when examining and reporting statistical analyses. We now also consider effect sizes so we get an idea of whether or not a statistically significant difference really matters.

 

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="CNN"]The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say.gameguy6700

Yeah, I think we're done here. 6-11 points isn't even a full standard deviation on IQ curves which means that while the finding may be statistically significant, in reality it has no effect.

This reminds me of studies done where researchers showed that girls scored higher on tests than boys. While the finding was statistically significant the effect size was pathetic. The two bell curves for boys' scores and girls' overlapped each other almost completely. However, this didn't stop idiot news reporters from proclaiming "girls smarter than boys" and idiot school administrators using the findings to segregate classes because they thought that girls and boys learned differently.

This is why behavioral scientists (well, the good ones anyway) have stopped looking at only p-values when examining and reporting statistical analyses. We now also consider effect sizes so we get an idea of whether or not a statistically significant difference really matters.

Whilst 6-11 points isn't greatly significant, it certainly isn't small enough to be negligible.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts
[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="CNN"]The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say.MetalGear_Ninty

Yeah, I think we're done here. 6-11 points isn't even a full standard deviation on IQ curves which means that while the finding may be statistically significant, in reality it has no effect.

This reminds me of studies done where researchers showed that girls scored higher on tests than boys. While the finding was statistically significant the effect size was pathetic. The two bell curves for boys' scores and girls' overlapped each other almost completely. However, this didn't stop idiot news reporters from proclaiming "girls smarter than boys" and idiot school administrators using the findings to segregate classes because they thought that girls and boys learned differently.

This is why behavioral scientists (well, the good ones anyway) have stopped looking at only p-values when examining and reporting statistical analyses. We now also consider effect sizes so we get an idea of whether or not a statistically significant difference really matters.

 

Whilst 6-11 points isn't greatly significant, it certainly isn't small enough to be negligible.

Actually, yes, it is. A standard deviation for an IQ curve is 15 points. You don't really see a difference in intelligence within the same standard deviation. In fact, in psychology you really don't differentiate between scores inside the same standard deviation because of variation inherent in the tests (a guy might score 108 one time and then 112 another time...what's important isn't his exact score but the SD he falls into, which in this case would be the first SD).

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#7 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

I have never denied this; what I have denied is that knowing so has any effect other than making liberals and atheists smug (I remember very well that bogus "Bush states vs. Kerry states average IQ" table from a while back).  Becoming a liberal atheist is not going to make someone smarter.

Avatar image for domatron23
domatron23

6226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 domatron23
Member since 2007 • 6226 Posts
Like Theokhoth said in the OT thread a correlation doesn't necesarily imply a causation.
Avatar image for gameguy6700
gameguy6700

12197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 gameguy6700
Member since 2004 • 12197 Posts

I have never denied this; what I have denied is that knowing so has any effect other than making liberals and atheists smug (I remember very well that bogus "Bush states vs. Kerry states average IQ" table from a while back).  Becoming a liberal atheist is not going to make someone smarter.

GabuEx

I think the intended point of people who bring this up is:

A. Smart people are generally thought to make better decisions and have better insight than less intelligent people
B. Studies show that atheists and liberals are more intelligent than theists and coservatives
C. Ergo A+B, atheism and liberalism are the better choices

Of course, these findings don't really show much of a difference so the whole argument falls apart.

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#10 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

I think the intended point of people who bring this up is:

A. Smart people are generally thought to make better decisions and have better insight than less intelligent people
B. Studies show that atheists and liberals are more intelligent than theists and coservatives
C. Ergo A+B, atheism and liberalism are the better choices

Of course, these findings don't really show much of a difference so the whole argument falls apart.

gameguy6700

Well, given the rampant anti-intellectualism in America, I imagine this study might have the opposite effect at least in that country. :P

I'm curious, however, whether there really is a correlation between a higher IQ and better choices.  I suppose there would be one between, say, a guy with an IQ of like 75 and a guy with an IQ of 120, but we're not exactly talking about people who are mentally handicapped here.  A higher IQ would seem to me to be an pretty minor point in terms of one's ability to determine the best economic courses of action in a country (the portion of liberalism that is not subjective in nature), and it would seem to me to have absolutely nothing at all to do with one's ability to correctly determine whether or not some supernatural being exists who is the ultimate source of all else that exists.  I normally abhor the cry of "elitism" that is so common, but I can think of nothing else to describe the argument of "look at these people, they're smarter than you, that means they're obviously right".

Avatar image for ChiliDragon
ChiliDragon

8444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 ChiliDragon
Member since 2006 • 8444 Posts
I'm curious, however, whether there really is a correlation between a higher IQ and better choices.GabuEx
Intelligent =|= smart. It's two completely different things, which is why games like AD&D have two different stats for Intelligence and Wisdom. ;) There's a reason the stereotype of the socially awkward genius who is incapable of adjusting his/her behavior to fit in and make more friends is so prevalent. So I would say that while it is possible there is a correlation, it's not in any way certain.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="CNN"]The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say.gameguy6700

Yeah, I think we're done here. 6-11 points isn't even a full standard deviation on IQ curves which means that while the finding may be statistically significant, in reality it has no effect.

This reminds me of studies done where researchers showed that girls scored higher on tests than boys. While the finding was statistically significant the effect size was pathetic. The two bell curves for boys' scores and girls' overlapped each other almost completely. However, this didn't stop idiot news reporters from proclaiming "girls smarter than boys" and idiot school administrators using the findings to segregate classes because they thought that girls and boys learned differently.

This is why behavioral scientists (well, the good ones anyway) have stopped looking at only p-values when examining and reporting statistical analyses. We now also consider effect sizes so we get an idea of whether or not a statistically significant difference really matters.

Whilst 6-11 points isn't greatly significant, it certainly isn't small enough to be negligible.

Actually, yes, it is. A standard deviation for an IQ curve is 15 points. You don't really see a difference in intelligence within the same standard deviation. In fact, in psychology you really don't differentiate between scores inside the same standard deviation because of variation inherent in the tests (a guy might score 108 one time and then 112 another time...what's important isn't his exact score but the SD he falls into, which in this case would be the first SD).

But we're not talking about individuals here, but rather a whole group of people. Also, I don't think you can say that it has little effect; take student X and student Y, both have offers to go to the same university where their university conditions are BBB in maths, chemistry and physics.

Now suppose that both students have both achieved their Bs in maths and chemistry. Student X get 71/100 in Physics and gets a B, but student Y gets 69/100 and gets a C.

Student X goes to his university of choice, whilst student Y doesn't. That happens in the real world thousands of time every year. Their scores are almost surely witihn the same standard deviation too.

On another note, I'll point out that if this survey was conducted in certain parts of the UK if not the whole, the scores would probably be inversed. This is becuase in my experience, most students are areligious, and if you are religious in England, you're more likely to have wealthy parents, and be more likely to go to a faith school which have been shown to provide a better standard of education than non-faith schools. Now contrast this with the US where most students are religious, and the exceptions are areligious.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a79221380856
deactivated-5a79221380856

13125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 deactivated-5a79221380856
Member since 2007 • 13125 Posts

I didn't notice at first, but here's something I found interesting about the study:

"Neither Bailey nor Kanazawa identify themselves as liberal; Bailey is conservative and Kanazawa is "a strong libertarian.""

Although, I don't know w hy they bring up Bailey, since he wasn't part of the study. I've heard on OT that this study is biased mainly because it was done by an evolutionary psychologist which with that term generally comes associations of liberalism, but that's not the case. As for their religious beliefs, we're left with nothing.