View Single Post
Old 03-01-2009, 12:36 PM   #105
SkinWalker's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Methodology is flawed in that it uses a sample size that was not equal. Nearly 100 to 1.*
They got a more accurate average for religious than athiest. That means it would trend toward the average of the US, which last I checked was right around 100. **
The issue with that is that the samples are not equal populations, so any adjustment in the populations would also have skewed results. Moreover, it would raise questions on separate methodology which would need to be applied to pick a smaller sample of the religious. Remember, n=10,650,267. There are a given population of religious and a given population of atheists.

Therefore the most accurate interpretation of the numbers would be to use actual n of both populations. Even still, 117, 681 is no small sample size!

It fails to break it out by how religous they are, and whether they are fundamentalists.
My summaries fail at this, but both papers go into some detail with this regard. In fact, Nyborg conducts different statistical tests (12 I think) for various interpretations of religiosity.

Seems to me if you pick and choose where you get your data you can manipulate your data aquisition to skew your results.
Which is why he goes to great pains to exhaust a dozen possible compilations, attempting to control for various things like income and degree of religiosity. The results of each are consistent with the syllogisms hypothesized and, to be fair, he did find that liberally religious people scored higher than dogmatically religious, but the non-religious trended higher still.

Again, while I find it insulting that you keep making the claim that the religious are less intelligent, I do not judge the worth of a person by their IQ.
I'm not making an assertion so much as an observation. Those who do not consider themselves dogmatically religious or dogmatically conservative (i.e. wholesale buy-in to the more absurd fundamentals of conservative ideology), trend toward higher cognitive ability. Better thinking skills (rationalism, critical reasoning, skeptical processing, logical reasoning, etc.) cause help the individual make better decisions an align themselves better politically.

Whether or not you find data insulting or not is a choice you'll need to decision on your own. The data are empirical and it is reasonable to expect individuals of higher cognitive ability to engage in intelligent and reasoned discourse on topics they find controversial without choosing to be "insulted."
Nor do I judge their worth by the level of education.
Level of education was not a primary factor. The samples used in the Nyborg data were adolescents of 12-17 years of age. They are obviously pre-collegiate. They potential of people with higher cognitive function to succeed in higher academics is greater, that's a given, but not a necessary component of either the hypotheses or the results.

**interesting to note that the average from the test is higher than the national average. could that indicate that those that took the ASVAB are smarter than the average person in the US?
It could also be temporally significant or significance could be a result of the test instrumentation (i.e. less psychological pressure since the ASVAB doesn't affect one's ability to be accepted to college). The key point is a single instrument was consistently applied to the entire population of n, giving each sub-population a consistent instrument of measure.

A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: