I cannot speak from research, but I can speak from the experience which I’ve had. I would have to say that the whole IQ thing is generally ridiculous, and all you have to do is look at the questions on the typical IQ test and realize how ridiculous the whole idea is in the beginning. As a young child, I was qualified as a genius. Yeah, so what? That means I think in a way which some people think is a smart way. I disagree. And, it is generally assumed, that intelligence is a positive attribute. However, from experience, I can tell you that it is not always so, and those that are most intelligent do not usually go around having themselves tested. Also, I’m a Buddhist, and I accept all people as they are, for it is pointless to try to change their political veiws. Atheism is a belief, as well as everything else we believe in, or don’t. My suggestion is that the more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are not to judge people so quickly, as intelligence isn’t something that can be judged from a test.
’100th percentile’
It’s past my bedtime, and IANA MENSA member, but can you be in the 100th percentile? Is there such a thing? Wouldn’t this suggest that your score was higher than your score?
Justhink, I want to respond to your post about IQ tests but I am having a hard time understanding it.
Were the people who believed the Earth to be flat intelligent?
“”"""“Justhink, I want to respond to your post about IQ tests but I am having a hard time understanding it.”"""""
The ‘100th percentile’ thing was in relation to time trial precidence… from the set that had taken the test prior to myself.
I know the cognitive scientist issuing the test had been administering it for 25 years… not sure how long the test itself has been given. He told me right when I took the test, that I had set records when I finished these parts… rather non-chalantly in fact.
This ‘achievement’ was only in narrow aspects of the test directly related to ‘abstraction’. It was an 8 hour cognitive test issued by a university psychiatric team to determine whether I had schizophrenia or not. The consensus was that I had classic OCD.
Clearly, not everyone has taken the test, which is why I placed ‘100th percentile’ in little quotes. The general point, is that I’d imagine most people would not consider me to be near-retarded and I myself aknowledge a variety of deficiencies in regards to memory recall (I’m not some sort or genius either). For all I know, people break this record everytime they take the test… which means that ‘my’ times have been shattered since the couple years since I took it.
One thing I noticed when reflecting upon the test is that many aspects of this ‘glorious’ abstraction capacity I seem to possess, involved motor skills – umm… ok, so I have good dexterity. Stephen Hawkins would have failed it shrug
I’m considerably cynical in regards to IQ tests.
-Justhink
Quite obviously, some were and some were not; “intelligent” is not a synonym for “knowledgeable,” at least as I take it. By the same token, I would consider Newton to have been a more than ordinarily bright guy, but he believed that the universe wasn’t expanding; what of it?
“”""“Justhink, I want to respond to your post about IQ tests but I am having a hard time understanding it.”"""""
I was stating that many aspects of IQ tests which judge abstraction utilize psycho-motor skill and many aspects which attempt to judge abstraction absent of motor skills are focused on the ability to parrot knowledge, rather than formulating conclusions. IQ tests seem to be biased towards ‘achievers’, ragardless of whether or not the achievement itself negates their own purpose for achieving. I imagine that quite a few individuals would feel that answering everything correctly would be a failure of achievement - and as such would intentionally answer differently than what they assume is considered correct on the answer key; in hopes that the test actually does measure IQ itself - some sort of inherent faith that the test is actually more intelligent than they are; that it’s not as cynical as to really have the obvious answers on the key, that a person would parrot, given a lack of critical thinking about how some ‘correct’ answers contradict themselves in relation to the purpose of taking the test.
-Justhink
My point is that this whole thread begs the question “What is intelligence?”. It’s not an easy question but it is crucial to a debate like this one. I see people using many different definitions in here. I think agreeing on a common definition sounds easy but will prove to be anything but. Is it a measure of your problem solving abilities? Is it a measure of your memory capabilities? Is it a measure of your adaptability? Is it a measure of your skill at taking tests? Is it a question of being correct? Is it a measure of how judgemental you are? Is it a measure of your mechanical skills? Is it a measure of rationality and consistency? Does it measure your language abilities? Is it all of these things?
Religious beliefs would interfere with some of these traits and not with others. Like most debates around here, the definition becomes crucial and most likely highly debatable.
DaLovin’ Dj
If anyone chose to believe in God simply because they were concerned if they did not and God did exist, then God would punish them…that seems a fine example of cowardice.
I personally believe God, if She exists, will reward people for being as honest as possible with themselves. If I do not see adequate evidence to believe in something, I will not believe in it. If God chooses to punish me for that, then there is something wrong with God.
I agree ready29003. Just because a god exists does not automatically make it worthy of worship. If the text “The Bible” is an accurate description of the nature and acts of a god, I think that Lucifer cat may have had the right idea. Hmmm. An entity that burns people who don’t match his criteria of what a good person should be. Reminds me of a certain evil human from the 40’s.
DaLovin’ Dj
I also agree with you, and I must say that I think alot of people believe in God because it’s something to believe in, and it gives them something that they can just accept as true, and therefore not have to think about analytically. This would suggest a type of psychological laziness, though I would not say that all people who believe in God are lazy, but the idea does seem to suggest that it’s possible.
Well, yes, of course. Nevertheless, I think the average person has a reasonable intuitive grasp of what intelligence is, even if he or she can’t give a precise, quantifiable definition. It’s sort of like obscenity: I can’t tell you exactly what it is, but I know it when I see it.
Let’s see now…
[ul]
[li]Does having religious belief interfere with problem solving? Yes in some cases, for some people, but not necessarily so. Then again, so does having scientific belief, and believing in the rules of mathematics, etc.[/li][li]Does having religious belief have anything to do with memory capabilities. No.[/li][li]Does having religious belief have anything to do with taking tests? No.[/li][li]Does having religious belief have anything to do with being correct? Quite obviously so. Does being intelligent necessitate being correct? Quite obviously not; since no one is ever right about everything, this definition of intelligence is useless.[/li][li]Does having religious belief have anything to do with being judgmental? In the sense of “willing to make uninformed judgments,” one would suppose that this depends on the nature of the belief, but I would contend that it is surely too (dare I say it?) judgmental to say that this is true of all religious people or beliefs.[/li][li]Does having religious belief have anything to do with mechanical skills? No.[/li][li]Does having religious belief have provide a measure of rationality and consistency? Not a priori, no. It is certainly possible to have irrational and/or inconsistent religious beliefs; it is also certainly possible to have both rational and consistent religious beliefs.[/li][li]Does having religious belief have anything to do with language skills? No.[/li][/ul]
My conclusion: to suggest that intelligence requires a particular religious stance, or to suggest that having a particular religious stance requires lack of intelligence, is both insulting and itself not particularly intelligent.
You left out adaptability, which I would argue is the most important of the traits which could be included under the non-specific umbrella that is labeled intelligence. Religious belief most certainly can interfere with adaptability. Someone who is sure they are correct and impervious to change no matter what new data they may encounter is sorely lacking in this department.
I would have to say that religious beliefs, heck dogmatic beliefs in general, impede certain facets of intelligence and not others. So the answer becomes yes and no. And if the universe and conciousness turn out to be mechanically explainable and the reductionists are correct, then the belief in magical entities will seem primitive. Is a primitive intelligent? Yes and no.
DaLovin’ Dj
Sorry; forgot one. And yes, any belief in which the believer is unwilling to admit even the possibility of being wrong is problematic. This, however, says nothing about religious belief per se. It’s true that we associate this kind of belief with, for example, fundamentalists, but it would be a misleading generalization to say that all fundamentalists are incapable of admitting that they might be wrong or that all people who are incapable of admitting that they might be wrong are fundamentalists of some religious stripe or another.
In other words, I think you’re making an inappropriate generalization about the nature of religious belief.
Generally, this is the nature of religious belief. Sure, there are exceptions, but these folks are far and few between in my experience.
DaLovin’ Dj