Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences

Originally posted by Totalstranger
the article says that young adult who are more liberal have an average IQ of 106, while conservative young adults have an average IQ of 95. I think both of those fall well within "normal", hell 95 seems a bit borderline stupid. But neither of those scores are anything to brag about. not even close.

oh well, I see that in related stories to the right of the article, there is a story about how more intelligent children end up becoming vegetarian! I'd start a thread but I just dont even care enough

Everyone I know who has done IQ tests has gotten greater than 110... 95-106 seems low... at the age I took my test, which was about 9 was 130 something... I thought the average was around 110s or higher?

Originally posted by moocowman
Dawkins merely observes there is no more evidence for a god than there is fairies or the flying spaghetti monster and dismisses all equally.

Big difference there.

But there is no more evidence for 'chance' creating the universe than there is for the FSM or fairies, so why don't atheists tend do dismiss that equally, too ?
If one's going to have a scientific position on whether God exists or not, to me, agnostic seems the most logical.
If you don't believe the universe came about by design, then using deductive reasoning you must believe that it came about by 'chance' or an 'accident'. Yet, what evidence is there for this ? 'Chance' seems equally as much an unneccessary plurality as design.


[edit on 25-2-2010 by Benji1999]

reply to post by pieman


Hey Pieman guess who ?

I was not tested so don't know what to think, I'm pretty much an atheist but have practically zero education, hey alphabet spaghetti is completely wasted on me lol.

IMHO atheists appear to be far more critical of the world than the religious, which now I think of it makes me wonder if Atheists are less naturally trusting than the religious?

Originally posted by randyvs
Despite the fact I can't see this thread being in Sci and Tech. I plainly see a disbelief in God as a mark against anyones intelligence. Any claim that God does not exist, gets an automatic five marks against. No one can sensibly make that claim. Not Dawkins, no one.
I very simply describe myself as a follower of Jesus Christ.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by randyvs]

Funny how religion(not to be confused with spirituality) and hypocrisy seem to be mutually dependent. I'm not an athiest, but you can no more make the claim that God exists, than someone who says it doesn't. Its best to think for yourself. I mean in your view, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING you do, is part of a plan, so you have no free will. So how can you possibly offend that which devised the plan.

You need a healthy dose of life. Too many people are living for possible afterlife, forgetting we for sure have one here. And if there isn't a plan, and we are all going to be judged, heaven is a quiet empty place. I say that because I don't know how any being could be smart enough to create the universe and all its features, yet ignorant enough to ignore the blatant disregard we have for it. Some things can't be forgiven.

As for the OP's post, its interesting no doubt. I wouldn't buy into the literal meaning of liberal, in terms of politics. More likely that the intelligence leads people to have greater faith in themselves and their opinions/attitudes, thereby avoiding the need for a "well it worked before" perspective. This opens the door to new ideas, which don't subscribe to an already established doctrine. I mean all this "conservative" stuff, was pretty liberal at some point in our history, the only thing that ever really changes is perspective.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by JunoJive]

reply to post by Benji1999


You are right, lack of evidence for something says nothing at all about its existence. It is utterly illogical to say that because we have no evidence for a "God" however you define that, there therefore there is no god.

Anyone who says science can say God DOESNT exist doesnt understand science very well. All science can say is that certain claims made by certain religions, (6000 year old Earth) are not factually supported.

I agree with those who say that agnosticism is by far the more reasonable view to take. We can say we dont know. Atheism is too much of a reach for me, when it is taken as a positive claim that God (or Gods) does (or do) not exist.

reply to post by Benji1999

But there is no more evidence for 'chance' creating the universe than there is for the FSM or fairies, so why don't atheists tend do dismiss that equally, too ?

Evolution of life on earth and the question of what started the universe are 2 different things.

We do know however that it is equally likely that fairies created the universe as yahwehjesus creating the universe the evidence for both is the same.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on cosmology by the way I have the same access to information from both sides of the argument as you do I just happen to reject one due to lack of evidence.

Originally posted by moocowman

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on cosmology by the way I have the same access to information from both sides of the argument as you do I just happen to reject one due to lack of evidence.

Do you also reject things for which we have no solid evidence when science presents them? And mind you, I am not a traditionally religious person myself. So, I am not defending the Big Three in any way.

But do you reject scientific theories until they are backed up with hard evidence? Or do you just remain neutral intellectually rather than take a mental position one way or the other?

For instance, the Big Bang. We do have observation of the universe apparently expanding, which would lead us to believe it was once a point, which "exploded" outward, however, we have exactly the same evidence for that point, that "initial condition" as we do for God or Fairies creating the universe. None.

en.wikipedia.org...

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant.

WOW! This is psychology which means it is inherently flawed. The human mind and intelligence is developed as differently as anyone out their. This sounds like a propaganda piece. If you live a liberal town and you are a conservative does that mean you live in a smarter town? Absolutely not. And I refuse to see how caring for many people denotes intelligence. That idea is contrary to evolution, and possibly to your own well being. Liberal or Conservative, caring or not people have their own reasons for how they are. Intelligence tests can be bias and therefor give advantage to those with like minded views.

Then we can get into the philosophical and ask what is intelligence? A topic I despise as it leads to many roads, few of which are productive.

Look up division 51 of the APA and mission statement says they thank Feminism and men don't live up to their full human potential because they are men. So yes it is all pretty bias, and I feel that to put stock in this kind of reporting/study is folly and irresponsible.

Nonsense. Just more inane babble that has liberals high fiving each other over what they always assumed, that they are better than everyone else. Like any group, there are intelligent people and idiots...liberals seem to have the lions share of the latter.

Originally posted by oppaperclip
And I refuse to see how caring for many people denotes intelligence. That idea is contrary to evolution, and possibly to your own well being.

You may refuse to see why caring for people denotes intelligence, however, that idea is NOT contrary to evolution. Human beings are as successful as we are because we are social. We gang up and do things as groups, and we collect together a body of knowledge (culture) and pass it on to our heirs so that they may be more successful as well. There is a good deal of support for the idea that our "caring for others" is in a technical way "selfish" at a higher order of the idea of "selfish" and so it would not be unintelligent to do so, nor contrary to evolution at all.

its a weird study because of the words used and the culture of people using English words for concepts that have no origin in their native tongue.intelligence is not a quotient for knowledge but facts that are corroborated by observations from a person with knowledge.a person who is intelligent should have preferences that are unnatural as the acceptance of ones observation as fact by the non observer is false to the observer; this in essence is unnatural.the east has problems with intelligence and i don't think they cultivate knowledge much; wisdom is exalted but not prosperous there.if i can remember to move an abacus in a certain pattern and do it faster than my peers thus me being more intelligent based on eastern standards; i fail to see how my preference for profit away from an abacus is an unnatural preference.

Originally posted by moocowman
Evolution of life on earth and the question of what started the universe are 2 different things.

We do know however that it is equally likely that fairies created the universe as yahwehjesus creating the universe the evidence for both is the same.

Well, I think we're at cross-purposes here as I was not referring to evolution of life on earth, but the origins of the universe, although actually one would tend to explain the other.
But if you believe that God did not create the universe then surely you believe that 'chance' did - if so, then that explantion is also equally as likely as the fairy explanation.
In my opinion, it doesn't seem to right to rule anything out with the current knowledge we have.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on cosmology by the way I have the same access to information from both sides of the argument as you do I just happen to reject one due to lack of evidence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticising your stance, but would you not concede that scientifically there is an equal lack of evidence for a chance creation/explanation ?

I have many "unnatural preferences"... I wonder what this study would say about someone named Benevolent Heretic? A (mostly) liberal atheist... Anyway...

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I agree with those who say that agnosticism is by far the more reasonable view to take. We can say we dont know. Atheism is too much of a reach for me, when it is taken as a positive claim that God (or Gods) does (or do) not exist.

I used to agree with this. But then I realized that the chances of the existence of God are the same as the chances of the existence of... ANYTHING. Let's say orange people eaters. I can't say that I'm "agnostic" about orange people eaters... or any other imagined being that there's no proof of.

"Hey, BH, do you believe in Thrumagompolis"?

"Uh, I'm agnostic. Thrumagompolis may be real or it may not be."

So, that's why I call myself an atheist. I do, however allow for the possibility of being wrong. There may be a God OR a Thrumagompolis. Maybe both. BUt until I see proof of either, I will think and say that neither exists.

this is just plain BS...

u dont have to be an athiest to be intelligent..

I know many intelligent christians..

Such a claim only shows how low the standard of knowledge in that magazine is... SERIOUSLY !

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I used to agree with this. But then I realized that the chances of the existence of God are the same as the chances of the existence of... ANYTHING. Let's say orange people eaters. I can't say that I'm "agnostic" about orange people eaters... or any other imagined being that there's no proof of.

"Hey, BH, do you believe in Thrumagompolis"?

"Uh, I'm agnostic. Thrumagompolis may be real or it may not be."

So, that's why I call myself an atheist. I do, however allow for the possibility of being wrong. There may be a God OR a Thrumagompolis. Maybe both. BUt until I see proof of either, I will think and say that neither exists.

The difference is, in my opinion, that it is irrelevant whether orange people eaters or Thrumagompolis exist, because we have no reason to require them in an explanation of how and why everything exists.
However, we do know that the universe exists and there must be some explanation as to how and why it does so, if you don't belive God was responsible then you must believe that it was down to chance, but there is no evidence of 'chance' being responsible; in fact there's equal evidence that 'chance' could be responsible for everything that exists as there is for the Thrumagompolis.
In essence, if you reject the need for God to create the universe, then you must support an explanation that is as supported by facts as the FSM is.

This posting reminds me of a Southpark episode where the intellectual liberal types were all impressed with smelling there own vapors.

Be smart enough enough to see the bias in these studies before you jump on the band wagon about your own intelligence.

Originally posted by Phlynx


Everyone I know who has done IQ tests has gotten greater than 110... 95-106 seems low... at the age I took my test, which was about 9 was 130 something... I thought the average was around 110s or higher?

Origionally, your IQ was your mental age divided by your real age times 100, though I believe everyone over 21 (or it may be 25) is considered to be 21 (or 25).

That would mean if you were ten years old and had the intelligence of the average 12 year-old, your IQ is 120. If you were ten years old and had the intelligence of an 8 year-old, your IQ would be 80. Kind of slow, but not retarded.

Today, there are many IQ tests out there (especially online) and somebody could get a 115 on one but a 135 on another. However, on the the Stanford-Binet and other IQ tests widely accepted by experts as legit, the average is 100; 132 is enough to get you into MENSA.

So the average IQ is supposed to be 100. And, in industrialized nations, it is. The average IQ in America is 98, and it is only slightly higher in Europe (I believe 102). In some third world countries, mostly in Africa, it is much lower.

People lie about their IQ all the time. They either don't know what it is, or if they do they often add 30 points or so to the real score. That's why people believe the average IQ is 125 to 135. If that were true, we'd be a nation of geniuses!!

An IQ of 100 is nothing to be ashamed of at all. That is adequate intelligence to get a bachelor's degree at the majority of colleges and universities (though the IQ of the average college student is, as you might expect, over 100).

I remember reading a study about IQ by profession about 20 years ago. Of the professions it had adequate data on, the three highest were CPA (first place; average IQ 127), followed closely by attorney and university professor, both with an average IQ of 124.

In last place were truck drivers, with an average IQ of 88.

Mildly retarded range is 50 to 69; 70 to 80 is considered borderline intellectual functioning, but NOT retarded.

It's important to understand, though, that IQ tests do not measure every kind of intelligence.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by ClintK]

Originally posted by Benji1999
The difference is, in my opinion, that it is irrelevant whether orange people eaters or Thrumagompolis exist, because we have no reason to require them in an explanation of how and why everything exists.

We have no reason to require God as the explanation of how and why everything exists, either. I'm comfortable with "I don't know why everything exists". As far as "how", science has pretty good evidence. I don't have "faith" in science. It might be right and it might be wrong, but I don't feel a compelling need to explain everything.

However, we do know that the universe exists and there must be some explanation as to how and why it does so, if you don't belive God was responsible then you must believe that it was down to chance,

As I said, I actually don't need to have a "belief" about it. I'm comfortable waiting for proof. Or not.

In essence, if you reject the need for God to create the universe, then you must support an explanation that is as supported by facts as the FSM is.

I find it interesting that people will believe in something because of a need to have an explanation. I think that's a very odd reason to believe in God... "Because it had to be something that caused us to exist and I can't think of anything else..."

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
But do you reject scientific theories until they are backed up with hard evidence? Or do you just remain neutral intellectually rather than take a mental position one way or the other?

Going to toss my hat into the arena here.

Theories are just theories, speculation. Some theories however have a elegant basis with some basic principles and math to back it up. String theory, big bang, even black holes are theories that have a good grounding in our current understanding of how things work. Black holes (I believe) are still theoretical however there is enough evidence collected to start risking a general belief...big bang also...string theory has a ways to go before it accomplishes that.

Now, compare those theories with others based in no observable science such as fairys, santa clause, and dietys. These things you need to get over the logical issues in order to truely believe. This does not mean you cant "hope" for them, or simply choose to believe on a more creative expression basis, but for a actual belief of such entities with absolutely no grounding beyond a book is a sign of a flawed method in thinking.

reply to post by truthquest


Well we surely have a different definition of 'liberal'.

Mine doesn't come from wikipedia. I'm afraid like a lot of people you have fallen for conservative politicizing of the term.

To be liberal simply means to be open to change and not stuck in past values and traditions that keep us from evolving and our communities from improving and flourishing.

Do you think communities are getting better? You have fallen for the system the PTB wants, a system full of people with no connection, or responsibility, or consideration for those around us in our communities. They want you to think of only yourself, that makes you easier to control. They don't want strong communities, because strong communities don't need the government and their BS. Strong LIBERAL communities are self sufficient and autonomous. The PTB only exist because we let them, and we let them because they create boogie men for us to be scared of to justify their existence, power and control.

You have no idea what is beyond your front door, another media educated armchair commenter. You are scared of change, full of media sensationalistic BS with no real perspective on the world.

liberal

adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Only in America does the term 'liberal' replace the term 'fascism', and the society fall for it. Oh wait, there was Germany, more than just scientists were transferred to the USA after WWII.