Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Regardless of where it comes from, it's no real secret that atheists are more intelligent then the religious minded. Thousands of years ago people looked at lightening in awe of Zeus whereas the atheist of the time wished they could understand lightening as a natural phenomena. Are you to say we should consider the followers of Zeus as more intelligent than the atheist? Should we consider all religions which posit belief in invisible deities as more intelligent than those who seek true knowledge and understanding?

How is this 'black and white' thinking? No, this is called realistic thinking rooted in reality rather than born of some ill thought out religious doctrine that managed to survive the ravages of time. Nor did it survive due to being true or 'intelligent', but due to unending violence that still persists to this very day. Yes.. how intelligent they are. Believe as I believe or die in the name of my deity of choice. Perhaps us atheists should concoct some fanciful hellish land that we goto when we die if one isn't an atheist. Perhaps then we can convert the religious minded if our hell is much scarier than their hell.

reply to post by sirnex


Yet you completely fail to notice context. The comments about black and white thinking was obviously a response to the person to whom I was responding assertion that there was no such thing as agnosticism.
Though it should be worth noting that claiming it's fact doesn't necessarily mean it is. As attractive as strawmen arguments and unswerving belief in their own "rightousness" are for partisians.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


One can't find context through vagueness. If you wished to raise a certain point about my opinions towards agnosticism, then you should have explicitly made mention of such. I have no idea if your making a point about my opinions towards the article or agnosticism.

I still maintain that there is no such thing as agnosticism and that it's nothing more than a means of remaining 'PC' on the issue of deity or as a means of covering up either lack of belief or belief of deity, or a sign of be incapable of processing the evidence of both sides and making up one's mind on the issue.

Again, there is no half-way point in belief. You either believe in a deity or you don't. You can believe either way and still maintain open mindedness to the other possibility that is contrary to your belief. There is nothing 'black or white' about that line of thinking, that's just being realistic. You either do or you don't. Same thing as there is no such thing as 'trying'. You don't try to be good, you don't try to do better. You either do or you don't. There is no half way of doing something or believing something. It's do or don't and that's just realism at it's finest.

Watcher-in-the-shadows,my sentiments exactly,on all perspectives.

I happen to have a relative who founded a new age religon with members numbering in the millions worldwide,what you will really find interesting is the methods religons use to keep experienced members from defecting once they REALLY LEARN the implications of the information in the bible,you see the more you read it the more it actually forces you to reject the eligous experience.Because the bible and other old doctrines are derivitives of actual historical recordings and writings that have been bastardised into tools of manipulation,anyone who intimately learns the information and is able to also acess the information available online regarding science and many paralell cultural histories CANT HELP BUT SEE THAT THE BIBLE IS A HISTORY BOOK PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

They do a double tap on reverse psycology,and believe it or not use the same principals to manipulate a smarter person from a slightly more learned perspective to immediatly bog these people down at the immediate next level of perspective,effictively consuming their remaining TIME because our lifetime is limited,so the longer we can be kept IN one reality or perspective the more we can accomplish for our masters.They put them back in spiritual and intellectual quicksand.


I read the entire bible when I was a little kid,I could walk you through the entire book with a highlighter and show you how reverse extrapolate to spot what is truth and what is manufactured,it is that simple if you know what to look for.And I mean from page one --on.I dont require an existing doctrine of my own to compare to the bible to do this either.Or to the Koran,or any other doctrine,in fact the system works with ANY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN HUMANS NO MATTER WHAT THE METHOD OR MEDIA.

I have always thought my perspective has been an "it takes one to know one"issue,considering that millions of people are seeing the world basically the way my relative did many years ago I believe that if you can build it you can also deconstruct it,it takes the same type of thinking to effictively accomplish both actions..

Just look at how silly most of the questions on IQ tests are,its like a tv game show,I just did one from Mensa and lets just say I only got four questions wrong and they were ALL MATH RELATED.For some reason my entire life has been one of ignorings math,reusing to accept it as valid.I am totally math backwards.I once used a totally unrelated theoretical equation to solve a question in a physics class,the equation I used to reverse extrapolate THE CORRECT ANSWER,warent accepted because the ways I used them were so bizarre.I fought the administration and did several more related questions the same way,AND NAILED THEM ALL, but you know what ,they still wouldnt accept my method and forced me to simply do a retest with the knowledge that my methods were off limits.

I dont do math my friends ,I believe it is like a drug,like crack for the brain,it is what teaches us to DIVIDE THINGS,when we naturally WANT TO ADD THINGS.No kidding,and the fact that I can be a math cripple and still identify ways to solve fairly complex problems with totally unrelated methodology PROVES THAT MATHAMATICS ARE ALSO B.S.

Designed by someone with an agenda that is not totally humanitarian.

I believe that if I had learned and believed in mathamatics I would not be getting ALL BUT FOUR ANSWERS RIGHT.Math would have "compartamentalised"my brains ability to freely flow and accept continous creative input.

So what do you say about me?

IQ tests are obviously not about intelligence ,they are about ability to process multiple OR MANY MANY perspectives SIMULTANEOUSLY and CONSTANTLY.If you know how to reverse extrapolate you become dynamite.The word reverse should turn on any mind like mine because you will instinctively know that the only way to PROGRESS IS TO CHALLENGE THE STATUS QUO,and we know that the people before us werent idiots so we are able to see that sometimes using their knowlege to vault forward past points where we have stalled is a real and viable option.

Haha, how funny is it to see a study saying that liberals are more intelligent. Anyone want to guess what political party this guy votes for? I call BS, you simply cannot equate things like intelligence with political affiliation and religion. Hell you can't even equate intelligence with education. I know plenty of educated people that are dumb, and plenty of uneducated people that are very smart.

reply to post by one4all


I got to agree with you on math it's not the language of the universe, just another language in a universe. I always sucked at math and dident like it but most of my frustratetion, comes from the fact that when I was a kid they would try to force it on me. U know the shadow in the backround telling you learn this. But I do understand its purpose and why the ancients created it, its a very narrow tunnel, things are the way they are. keeps the world concrete. If you try to look back it was brought abouth for the same reason religions were, some ancient summerian or egiption or greek, they dident like the current thoughts and process, so they invented a new world for themselfs, and it slowly turned into a cult, under the old god's systems of the era they lived
But it has its purpose it still is the most clear language out there,

Look at the english language, u can turn it on its head upside down and sideways. Its just not that evective of a way to comunicate every thing, even when 2 people say the same exact words it can have different meanings, it creates different illusions. With math you dont have that, atleast not in a huge quantity as other languages, becouse its more concrete 1+1=2 there is no what, were, when, or why. Besides if it werent for math and science we wouldn't be sitting here on the web. I'f it werent for people like democrates who some say was the first man to come up with the concept of an atom the world of today would be tottaly different, or any number of men and women throughout history, we could be worshipping some cowheaded god and giving it virgin sacrifices.
When everybody knows there is no such thing as cowheaded gods or virgins, well the second might exist, even if it has a low probability.

reply to post by sputniksteve


You can with statistics. That's why we use them. I wonder which party you vote for

The main reason I dislike this study is the nature of "IQ" itself. We don't know what intelligence is. IQ is NOT a good measurement of intelligence, it's an "okay" guesstimate on intelligence.

Furthermore, there are studies that credit different races with different average IQ's. Which is a funny catch-22 for anyone who tries to use this to support any religious or political argument. If you try to use this as an argument for your stance and that you're "more intelligent", you need to accept the studies that show that blacks, Hispanics, and Arabs are less intelligent racially compared to Jews, Whites and Asians. You can argue the merit of that study but at the same time that opens up for this study's merit to be argued.

I prefer to just say # IQ's.

Damn, I am glad I am an idiot.

Oh wait, I am grumpy, so I must be more evolved than most!

Originally posted by constantwonder

More intelligent people are significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

Liberalism and atheism while as language terms are relatively new, as meanings there nothing new about them probably.
People would have been "Liberal", an "Atheist", and sexualy "exclusivist" (sp) probably since the dawn of civilization, at least compared to common customs and beliefs of given eras.

Although this, if true, would be pointing out that we should already be knowledgeable of "atheism", "liberalism" and "exclusivists" being valued throughout history but we aren't. (although sexual exclusivity was rather enforced than valued, in reality it was not a measure of an individuals value at all, at least for males, rather the opposite, a male that was appealing in more females was and was displaying willingness for being nonexclusive was/is a more successful male in the eyes of the females of the human species)

Chances are whoever followed this path faithfully.. was extinct.
Nature doesn't work like that.
You can't keep a society functioning and runiing without doctrines, a dogma and a God, you can't control your population with liberal doctrines and of course you can't be sexually exclusive and seriously expect to have many off springs.
People that cannot understand the above MUST delve in to evolutionary psychology.

If someone disagrees, just look our world today.
No, it's not love that is missing.
no, it's not that we are so much racist
No, its not that we have so much sexual freedom
No, its not that we are folled by religions.

ITS JUST THAT WE GOT EVERYTHING BACKWARDS.
Everything that used to work, that is.

This is not a safe world. It was never intended for it to be safe.
We make it safe with our decisions and our actions, that's why sentient beings create a civilization for, just look how unsafe we are today in this day and age. (think about nukes and engineered viruses, think about an NWO)
Things are simply not working and the things that used to make things work are not part of the problem.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by spacebot]

I also would like to say IQ is a HORRIBLE indicator of true intelligence. I hate it when they use the two terms interchangeably.

High IQ correlation to liberalism is obvious to me, based on liberalism in college. People with high IQ will naturally think they know more than their overlords. Thus, liberalism. People with low IQ will want more parenting from their government, thus conservatism.

I hate this study and all the publicity it's gotten.

Higher IQ does not make you happier, it does not make you more desirable, it doesn't make you stronger, will not make you prettier, won't make you healthier. It just gives you another edge. Clever people are not inheriting the world, though there are some good chances that the wise people will. What will be left of it anyway.

Originally posted by sirnex
Regardless of where it comes from, it's no real secret that atheists are more intelligent then the religious minded.

Who is it ''no real secret'' to, other than you ?
The only people that I've heard who make the claim that atheists are more intelligent than the religious minded, are atheists themselves. Similarily, the only people that I've heard make the claim that white people are more intelligent than black people are white supremacists.
Forgive me if I take each of these claims with a pinch of salt, considering the self-aggrandising one-upmanship and vested interest in both claims.
Many human beings have an almost pathological obsession with getting 'one over' on people that look, act or thinks differently to them, and sadly atheists have their fair share of these people.

If it's no great secret, then surely you'll be able to provide evidence that backs up these claims, and also a quantifiable, scientific definition of 'intelligence' to also back this up. Unless, of course, you're just defining ''intelligence'' by your own rough estimation of it that is itself based on your own unquantified level of intelligence...
Or maybe you're just trying to feel better about yourself by attempting to convince yourself that you're smarter than 95% of other human beings...

Originally posted by davesidious
You can with statistics. That's why we use them. I wonder which party you vote for

Statistics - that in this case are based on IQ - which in numerous other studies tend to show that black people score lower than other races. Are you going to endorse those studies, too ? Or are you going to cherry-pick the ones that suit you ?

Originally posted by sirnex
I still maintain that there is no such thing as agnosticism and that it's nothing more than a means of remaining 'PC' on the issue of deity or as a means of covering up either lack of belief or belief of deity,

I believe you are mistaken, but that is just my opinion. It's not just a case of either/or ''I believe there's a God'' or ''I believe there's not a God'' - it's perfectly possible to have a stance that entertains both possibilities without favouring either. Not everybody has to jump in at the deep-end and make an unfounded stab in the dark just for the sake of getting an answer.
Is it not the height of arrogance for an over-evolved ape to make a sweeping declaration of the very fundamental origins of everything that exists ?

Originally posted by sirnex or a sign of be incapable of processing the evidence of both sides and making up one's mind on the issue.

You're on the right track here, but not so much 'incapable' as more an honest admission that we would have to have a great deal more knowledge of the universe to even make an 'educated guess' one way or the other in regards to this question. Once again, nobody has to jump to a conclusion on a 'hunch', based on miniscule data that they can't truly interpret in the grand scheme of things.

Originally posted by randyvsI 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 that, I plainly see a belief in God as a mark against anyone's intelligence. And hold those people in lower standing.
My IQ is in the 99th percentile and I belong to a couple of clubs. Both those clubs have a handful of born-agains and other make-believe followers. I just consider them entertainment and do not spend much time listening to them try to explain how they're soooo smart and religious at the same time. What a laugh!

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

 

One can't find context through vagueness. If you wished to raise a certain point about my opinions towards agnosticism, then you should have explicitly made mention of such. I have no idea if your making a point about my opinions towards the article or agnosticism.

I still maintain that there is no such thing as agnosticism and that it's nothing more than a means of remaining 'PC' on the issue of deity or as a means of covering up either lack of belief or belief of deity, or a sign of be incapable of processing the evidence of both sides and making up one's mind on the issue.

Again, there is no half-way point in belief. You either believe in a deity or you don't. You can believe either way and still maintain open mindedness to the other possibility that is contrary to your belief. There is nothing 'black or white' about that line of thinking, that's just being realistic. You either do or you don't. Same thing as there is no such thing as 'trying'. You don't try to be good, you don't try to do better. You either do or you don't. There is no half way of doing something or believing something. It's do or don't and that's just realism at it's finest.

You can certainly believe something is possible without believing it is true.

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by constantwonder

 

The idea doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Atheism is unreasonable and liberalism is immoral. So, why would "smart" people subscribe to such theories? Perhaps their brain is excessively wired for logic, and it has been short-changed in the emotional reasoning / common sense / gut instinct department.

Ah, thank you for that, truly hilarious
I love the arguments which the Pot calls the tree a metal container. It makes my day. Up until the 70's all political parties ascribed to liberal philosophy. All that happened in the decades before were all from a liberal bent.

Suppose everything in the 1900's was immoral.

This is not even to mention Atheism is based 100% off of Reason. You know: Things you can interact with, see, touch, taste: Instead of what one feels.

Awesome argument though, still reeks of Poe's law to me, I honestly hope it isn't. It is far more entertaining to know people actually believe stuff like that.

Originally posted by doodums
I also would like to say IQ is a HORRIBLE indicator of true intelligence. I hate it when they use the two terms interchangeably.

High IQ correlation to liberalism is obvious to me, based on liberalism in college. People with high IQ will naturally think they know more than their overlords. Thus, liberalism. People with low IQ will want more parenting from their government, thus conservatism.

I hate this study and all the publicity it's gotten.

That is not what liberalism is, nowhere even close. What you have described is the peon mentality or, "I can do it better than the boss" idea-normal human nature. Has nothing to do with philosophical bent.

Though the word is demonized by the conservative movement. The definition of a "Liberal" is what Libertarians have become: huge focus on equal rights, personal freedoms and liberties, economic freedom from specific controllers.


A quick "Define: Liberal" in google returns the following:

liberal - broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...
liberal - tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
liberal - a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
liberal - big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
liberal - free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

The cons took a side definition of liberal: 'lots/big' and supplanted it's meaning in the peoples collective. Liberalism is not about knowing more than ones 'overloards' or about big governments etc..

Please be careful on hot button terms. Too easy to derail conversations and taint others.