Intelligent people have 'unnatural' preferences, page 2

Originally posted by constantwonder

It does however make sence that persons of higher intellegence are more likely to be athiest. I believe though that it shows an even greater intellegence if you are agnostic. Now i don't mean a waffler that believs one day then not the next, but a true agnostic who accepts that we just don't know.

It was an excellent read, and very interesting.

But, I think the truth of that statement would hinge entirely on how you intended the word "Atheist." Buddhism, after all, is considered Atheist by some, because it has no deity.

There are many people of very high IQ both historically and currently, who have some belief in something spiritual. Although many of them do reject the simplistic religious dogmas expounded by the three major modern religions which arose in the Middle East. And it is easy to see why they would reject those religions as they are taught. But rejecting certain religious ideologies and rejecting anything "spiritual" for lack of a better term are entirely different things.

Edit to add;

This bit,

www.physorg.com...

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

is in conflict with what brain imaging tells us about the development of religious thought.

www.newscientist.com...

Overall, the parts of the brain activated by the belief statements were those used for much more mundane, everyday interpretation of the world and the intentions of other people. Significantly, however, they also correspond with the parts of the brain that have evolved most recently, and which appear to which give humans more insight than other animals.

I am not sure I believe that the researcher who made the first claim is entirely well informed or objective, for that matter. And, as always, it is clear that when they say "religion," they really mean, "the Abrahamic religions." I am not sure that is entirely objective either.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

And I apologize, but I also have to take issue with this statement,

www.physorg.com...

In sharp contrast, whether they are in a monogamous or polygynous marriage, women were always expected to be sexually exclusive to one mate. So being sexually exclusive is evolutionarily novel for men, but not for women.

First of all,

en.wikipedia.org...

Polyandry in human relationships occurs or has occurred in Tibet, Canadian Arctic, northern parts of Nepal, Bhutan, parts of India (Ladakh, Zanskar), the Nymba, and Sri Lanka[citation needed], and is known to have been present in some pre-contact Polynesian societies [2], though probably only among higher caste women [3]. It is also encountered in some regions of Mongolia, among the Mosuo people in China, and in some Sub-Saharan African such as the Maasai people in Kenya and northern Tanzania [4] and American indigenous communities. Polyandry has been practiced in several cultures — in the Jaunsar region in Uttarakhand, among the Nairs, Theeyas and Toda of South India, and the Nishi of Arunachal Pradesh[citation needed]. The Guanches, the first known inhabitants of the Canary Islands, practiced polyandry until their disappearance.[citation needed] In other societies, there are people who live in de facto polyandrous arrangements that are not recognized by the law.

And secondly, having a cultural or religious rule that dictates what marriage is, and who should be able to do what within the marriage, is not "evolution." A good look back through history will make it quite clear that females are only moderately more monogamous than males by nature. (Evolution) And most of the "cause" of female's apparent leaning toward monogamy is the result of religion and cultural pressure. (Not evolution in the physical sense.) Even in our primate relatives we rarely see true monogamy on the part of either gender.

Edit;

Forgot to link to the Wikipedia article

[edit on 25-2-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by truthquest

---

How is liberalism immoral?

Please explain that one. Do you even know what liberalism is?

Doesn't the Bible talk about the evils of selfishness and the good of community? Didn't God give us free will? Doesn't he teach to love thy neighbour, not what they can do for you?

Humans are not supposed to be tied up in your morality play, who decides what's moral and what isn't, you?

The smartest people very rarely follow the mainstream version of politics and religion simply because WE can see it's all lies and the agenda behind it. You have fallen for the control, you are not a threat to the PTB, you let them control and exploit you, and you don't even realise your point of view, and life, isn't your own but the product of your social conditioning.

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds." Bob Marley.

[edit on 2/25/2010 by ANOK]

You are right that the smartest people don't follow the mainstream version of politics. From my perspective, the mainstream version of politics is liberalism. From Wikipedia:

Social liberalism is an ideology that believes the liberal state should supply individuals with the opportunity to provide for themselves by useful work. Like the adherents to any branch of liberalism, social liberals strongly believe in the importance of liberty, although they distinguish themselves by emphasizing positive liberty. The right to work and the right to a living wage are considered as real as the right to own property, while unemployment and low wages are considered to be a stain on the idea of social justice. It conceives the rights of the individual as harmonious with those of the community, and defines the first in terms of a common good and the second in terms of the well-being of individuals.[1] Social liberal policies include government intervention in the economy to provide full employment and social welfare, and protection of human rights. These policies were widely adopted and implemented in much of the capitalist world, particularly following the Second World War.[2] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[3][4][5][6]

From my perspective, most people have been brainwashed into the liberal idea that everyone must be babied (at gun point) from cradle to grave by an organization that does not have to follow the rules it sets for others because 'collectives are better and more moral than individuals'.

So, liberalism is the idea that the government is to use means of extortion and/or slavery to force one man to ensure another has a job, a living wage, medical care, etc.

I know all about selfishness and the good of the community from a surprisingly simple conversation I had with a co-worker, who I'll call Joe even though he was Indian. Any way, it went like this:
Me: "Taxes could be voluntary."
Joe: "Nobody would pay taxes if it was voluntary."
Me: "If nobody wanted to pay taxes then people could simply vote only for people who were going to reduce taxes. Therefore people do want to pay taxes."
Joe: "We need taxes! And if it was voluntary, nobody would pay them."
Me: "Ahh... so you want everyone else to pay taxes... but not you."
Joe: (Sheepish look of obvious guilt)

Liberalism is selfish because the whole idea is that 'individuals cannot be trusted to be generous, therefore the "generosity" being forced and therefore taxes must be collected using extortion'. Not only does the process of extortion make liberalism immoral but so to does the selfishness of liberalism in that liberals often want everyone but themselves to pay taxes.

Most people are liberals by the Wikipedia definition in that they think government should be doing all the things listed under the definition of "liberalism" and therefore intelligent people are not doing something out of step with the rest of the people when they subscribe to such an immoral perspective. Maybe less intelligent people are liberal and atheist, but more willing to admit to it in a survey.

As for forcing morals on others, I don't think it should happen very often. I'm not sure where you are going with that.

reply to post by constantwonder

---

Thank you for your interesting post. I have no contrary facts to present and so am willing to stipulate if pressed that it could very well be true that in the aggregate the most intelligent members of mankind now and in the past do not believe in God the Creator.
Going further, may I say, the Bible doesn't contradict this possibility.
One can infer from the Bible that level of intelligence is no predictor of faith in God.
I have been a studious person my whole life and do believe in God. If this qualifies me in the lesser group of the intelligent among us, I have absolutely no problem accepting this belittlement. Doesn't phase me at all.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by pumpkinorange]

[edit on 25-2-2010 by pumpkinorange]

This sounds very biased, done by a liberal atheist. I'm not sure if he is in fact either, but his work position points to the idea that he's a liberal. And even this blog title (www.scientificblogging.com...) points to the idea that he's both. (I didn't write the article and can't verify)

Here are a few things I'll pick at.

He said re liberalism:
"more intelligent people are more likely to recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent people, and some of these entities and situations are preferences, values, and lifestyles."

Just because someone recognize and understand "such novel entities" -- which is not so novel, btw -- doesn't mean that they HAVE to embrace it. Therefore, this guy has no proof that conservatives don't understand these amazing new liberal values, they just don't agree with them. Quite narcissistic to think that people who don't agree with you just don't understand and therefore aren't as intelligent, I would say.

From article:
"Kanazawa found that more intelligent individuals were more nocturnal, waking up and staying up later than less intelligent individuals.[...] Being nocturnal is evolutionarily novel."

I'm nocturnal. It doesn't mean I'm more intelligent. It means that the internet is available 24/7 with lots of entertainment value and because I refuse to stop playing online games at 2am, my bodily functions adjusted to artificial light. That's not revolutionary, that's just me having zero self discipline to get to bed.

From article:
"Kanazawa argues that humans are evolutionarily designed to be conservative, caring mostly about their family and friends, and being liberal, caring about an indefinite number of genetically unrelated strangers they never meet or interact with, is evolutionarily novel."

I'm not sure how he came to the conclusion that liberals are more caring than conservatives regarding strangers. I agree with a previous poster who said that our current society, being more liberal, cares much less about others than ever in history. Perhaps this is the case for idealistic liberalism (which is no where close to what we have in reality), but then by the same argument, you can also say that idealistic communism is about caring for everyone, big or small, being equal in a population. Obviously, in reality, neither is the case.

From article:
"Young adults who subjectively identify themselves as "very liberal" have an average IQ of 106 during adolescence while those who identify themselves as "very conservative" have an average IQ of 95 during adolescence. "

Do young adults know the full meaning of "liberal" and "conservative" in relation to current political policies? I had an IQ of 130 in early high school. I THOUGHT I was a liberal until 3 years ago (I'm about 30y/o now), because in school, we are indirectly taught that liberal = freedom = good. What young person doesn't want good and freedom? When I looked more carefully, I realize that I'm conservative with a liberal streak in equality.

Liberalism is not "novel". Especially not by today's standard. It's pretty much the default term for any young person these days who considers themselves modern & intelligent. If you say you are liberal, and no one questions it, but say that you are a conservative and everyone backs away and challenges your belief. It is essentially the uncool thing to associate yourself with.

Atheism doesn't equal intelligence, as there is no deduction reasoning that shows atheism is correct. FYI, I am not an atheist, I was essentially raised atheist/agnostic but I believe in God although I'm not of any religion. I came to my conclusion through a lot of studying.

It's essential to learn with an open mind, see both sides of the argument until there is no argument left, not just do what's cool, revolutionary, or "intelligent".

reply to post by Benji1999

---

Lol. Yeah, the more I consider the article, the more suspiciously agenda laden it seems. And, in general, they seem very careless with their use of terms like "evolution" and religion. I hate to be a bit of a snob, but it doesnt surpise me one bit coming out of the social sciences. Those guys really need to tighten up or drop the pretense of science. Yes, I am a tad prejudiced.

reply to post by randyvs

---

Any claim that God does not exist, gets an automatic five marks against. No one can sensibly make that claim. Not Dawkins, no one.

Dawkins does not claim that a god does not exist, time and again this misrepresentation is made (often knowingly).

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.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Yes, I agree with you about these social 'sciences', but what irritates me the most about these studies is how people will take them at face value, just because it reaffirms their own slightly insecure feelings on the matter, without actually looking into how it was conducted.

It seems bizarre to me that intelligence could even be linked with a belief or not in God, as it just seems to be 2 sides of the same coin.

And to link intelligence to political leanings is just absurd; how on earth can someone's personal views on what's wrong and right on any given issue have anything to do with intelligence ?

The secrets hidden in the pyramids. A real eye opener!
  Posted 7 days ago with 188 member flags

The mystery of 100+ mpg cars, and the disappearance & deaths of men behind it
  Posted 16 days ago with 106 member flags

Scientists able to talk to and teach dolphins sentences - Dolphins share a universal language.
  Posted 14 days ago with 93 member flags

6 Real People With Mind-Blowing Mutant Superpowers
  Posted 6 days ago with 90 member flags

Pirate Bay to Allow Real-Object Downloads. The Real Reason for SOPA, IMO.
  Posted 16 days ago with 74 member flags

a drop of water orbiting a nitting needle in space
  Posted 6 days ago with 69 member flags

Top 10 Most Incredible Pieces Of Nanoscale Art
  Posted 11 days ago with 43 member flags

cold plasma found above earth raises questions of einstiens "gravity is a fundimental force"
  Posted 19 days ago with 25 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: