A new study finds atheists have higher IQ than religious people. The same with liberals over conservatives and sexy/macho men (Tiger Woods?)over flaccid men. What do you think?
hmm... true ? i'm 'atheist'...but am i higher in IQ compared to religious ppl ? not sure leh... hahahaha...
Unless, we all broadcast our religious affiliations (non-affiliation) here and post a standardized IQ test result, we've no way of knowing for sure.
Religion --------- Look at it this way, the religious generally have a more fixed worldview about things and are far less likely to be open to new ideas, especially ones that would sound contradictory to what they were taught to believe. This conditioning often, if not always limit the ability for the mental and cognitive ability to develop. To challenge well-established religious interpretations are often frowned upon, further giving credence to this theory. Add to that the tendency of many religious communities to put emphasis solely on spiritual development, disregarding the importance of secular education. This in turn narrows the scope of knowledge and tools for the mind to experiment/ponder/consider which I believe would suggest why IQ levels could be lesser to the more religious but higher for those whom are less dogmatic. I'm a believer in Intelligent Design but I do not consider opposing ideas to be a taboo or blasphemy. If anything I'm not religious and I do not believe any religion out there hold the perfect or full truth about the Creator - that would be arrogance on the part that one claims to know everything there is about God or gods. Liberalism vs Conservatism -------------------------- The same goes for liberals vs conservatives, the latter usually holding to societal norms and harbouring more suspicion over new things whilst the former would embrace change more willingly. I would imagine that IQ can develop only through exposure to differing environments and lines of thought, the same with a badminton player's growth : if he were to play the same people every day, every week, every month, every year, he won't be facing different styles of play and challenge to develop; the same goes with the training of the brain muscle. Personally I'm neither liberal nor conservative as I believe facts don't change, only the interpretation and virtue of the idea based on the societal norms that is most relevant at the time of conception. I'm for equal distribution of wealth but I also believe that people who did more deserved to keep more. Macho ----- As for macho men, I don't know how to comment on this one - perhaps the assumption that macho dudes are more confident, hence are open to more opportunities to develop their social skills and career that the amount of exposure to differing elements helps in the development of mental and cognitive abilities? Haiz, I'm not that lucky to be born good looking instead of smart.
It does make sense about atheists and liberals having higher IQ, but how do you define macho men? Men who are so sexually obsessed actually have lower IQs. I believe modern males are very aware of the consequences and danger of playing with fire with their spouses by doing what Tiger Woods was doing. So they become more domesticated and faithful because the alternative is even worse. So do they become smarter? Perhaps.
It does make sense about atheists and liberals having higher IQ, but how do you define macho men? Men who are so sexually obsessed actually have lower IQs. I believe modern males are very aware of the consequences and danger of playing with fire with their spouses by doing what Tiger Woods was doing. So they become more domesticated and faithful because the alternative is even worse. So do they become smarter? Perhaps. But then what about in countries where religion allows a man to have multiple wives? Men in such countries appear to be smarter.
i think this is just another one of your jive talking, taking a weak study out of context and making some grand conclusion from it. First, IQ isn't an end all measure of human intelligent. In our real world, it's people with high EQ that seem to be more successful. On s3x quotient inversely to IQ, u did not do enough homework. The are many sexually obsessed men/women who are smart (IQ + EQ). Take documented womanizer Clinton and Martin Luther King, i think they are quite smart. (King would often use church donations to have drunken *** parties, where he would hire two to three white prostitutes, occasionally beating them brutally. This has also been reported by the FBI agents who monitored King. King was married with four children.). . Sure a few high profile personalities like tiger wood, kobe bryant, etc have being caught wif their pants down but those are only a few careless one that got exposed. I bet u there are 1000000x more wife cheaters out there that are doing quite well without their spouse knowledge. I assure u that it takes alot of IQ to sleep around AND NOT GET CAUGHT, and alot less IQ for being a yes man/woman, like the present situation with Clinton. in case u bring up Albert Einstein being an atheist and he is smart. Yes, if u talk about all those silly gods that men have dreamt up, he doesn't believe the current definition of creation or evolution. The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein, quoted in: Einstein's God - Albert Einstein's Quest as a Scientist and as a Jew to Replace a Forsaken God (1997) i hope u think deeper before making some grand claims or extrapolation of statement from a weak study, that or unless you're one sexually obsessed man by your definition.
I dont believe it, sorry. Which org did the research? And who's the audience? I can do a different research and give a totally different result. Often research are bias with their original purpose and onjective, so they will not 100% true.
IMO IQ tests are designed by self professed "smart people" to prove how smart they are.... On the other hand, based on those criteria (athiest, liberal, macho) I must be a frikken genius....
i'm thinking, scratching my head and asking myself:what is the point of this thread? - Mr. T, please provide the source or link of this article/new study. Btw, yes, i've already read the article of that new study (yes, you guys can google it and find the many different links). - I'm just asking myself : what is the point of this thread and you bringing it up? Is it just to ruse up the crowd by trying to bring up their own different beliefs? Or do you really want to learn both sides of the arguments and what they offer? - As for my own opinion, after reading the actual article, all i've got to say is the word in that article, which starts with the letter E and ends with the letter Y, speaks volumes. In essence, when you try to explain human behaviors without the mention of our Creator or God, anything is possible. I could give references to much more powerful words that would totally debunk the study, but i would reserve them if you're interested in them.
It is apparent that taneepak posted this for harmless fun. It is also apparent that some people are likely to be offended by the topic. My advice is for everyone to aim for their highest 'HQ' (Happiness Quotient) and use whatever 'IQ' they have been blessed with (or randomly assigned) to resist posting inflammatory replies and starting a war. Pacis inter amicitia
Reminds me of a Dilbert strip that I read from The Dilbert Principle: a Mensa president of the local chapter introduces himself to Dilbert and they spoke about why none of them doing anything else but being engineers under people who don't seem to understand anything. The reply was, "There is far less practical applications for intelligence than you think". EQ rules in the societal context because they influence people. IQ doesn't rule because the value of the speed of light don't have a place in politics and business where the real people in power are. King was a man with the idea and hope but what he did (if they were true) doesn't really show the magnitude of intelligence - all you need is an initiative and the balls to pull it off. No research on human behavioral theory is ever going to be 100% true as people from differing backgrounds and bias will produce differing results. Furthermore as cooler mentioned above we even disagree on what it means by 'intelligence'. Why don't you tell us why you disagree with the topic - now that would be better, no? Quite the conservative are you? Whilst I admit that the lack of source is a problem for this topic, this is by itself, that, a discussion. If you disagree with the idea, say why - don't attack Mr T. Far from trying to become a cattle rustler, I think the topic struck a nerve with many of us here because most are religious and conservative.
you guys proved my point.. ..thank you, both. You guys proved my point. Yes, it's probably for harmless fun, but like they say "It's easier said than done". Of course there will be opposing views abt this topic or "discussion". Do you think each one of us has the same view(s) and/or belief(s)? (Mr. T is probably smiling or even giggling reading all the replies). Anyway, as far as the study is concerned, i could care less abt it.
Scientists Unravel Mysteries of Intelligence By Amanda Gardner HealthDay Reporter by Amanda Gardner healthday Reporter – Fri Feb 26, 11:50 pm ET FRIDAY, Feb. 26 (HealthDay News) -- It's not a particular brain region that makes someone smart or not smart. Nor is it the strength and speed of the connections throughout the brain or such features as total brain volume. Instead, new research shows, it's the connections between very specific areas of the brain that determine intelligence and often, by extension, how well someone does in life. "General intelligence actually relies on a specific network inside the brain, and this is the connections between the gray matter, or cell bodies, and the white matter, or connecting fibers between neurons," said Jan Glascher, lead author of a paper appearing in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "General intelligence relies on the connection between the frontal and the parietal [situated behind the frontal] parts of the brain." The results weren't entirely unexpected, said Keith Young, vice chairman of research in psychiatry and behavioral science at Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine in Temple, but "it is confirmation of the idea that good communication between various parts of brain are very important for this generalized intelligence." General intelligence is an abstract notion developed in 1904 that has always been somewhat controversial. "People noticed a long time ago that, in general, people who are good test-takers did well in a lot of different subjects," explained Young. "If you're good in mathematics, you're also usually good in English. Researchers came up with this idea that this represented a kind of overall intelligence." "General intelligence is this notion that smart people tend to be smart across all different kinds of domains," added Glascher, who is a postdoctoral fellow in the department of humanities and social sciences at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Hoping to learn more, the authors located 241 patients who had some sort of brain lesion. They then diagrammed the location of their lesions and had them take IQ tests. "We took patients who had damaged parts of their brain, tested them on intelligence to see where they were good and where they were bad, then we correlated those scores across all the patients with the location of the brain lesions," Glascher explained. "That way, you can highlight the areas that are associated with reduced performance on these tests which, by the reverse inference, means these areas are really important for general intelligence." "These studies infer results based on the absence of brain tissue," added Paul Sanberg, distinguished professor of neurosurgery and director of the University of South Florida Center for Aging and Brain Repair in Tampa. "It allows them to systemize and pinpoint areas important to intelligence." Young said the findings echo what's come before. "The map they came up with was what we expected and involves areas of the cortex we thought would be involved -- the parietal and frontal cortex. They're important for language and mathematics," he said. In an earlier study, the same team of investigators found that this brain network was also important for working memory, "the ability to hold a certain number of items [in your mind]," Glascher said. "In the past, people have associated general intelligence very strongly with enhanced working memory capacity so there's a close theoretical connection with that.
-it is well know that who are running mankind now are politicians, lawyers, and bankers, not scientists, engineers, mathematician, philosophers. So who are smarter? -King was just 1 person who pop up while writing, i can surely find lots of better examples.
