Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: NordicNerd on February 14, 2016, 10:06:53 AM
-
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.abstract
Abstract
"A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices."
-
53 out of 63 studies is massive evidence.
Here's another one study, probably included in the meta-analysis above.
Religiosity is negatively correlated (http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/the-relationship-between-intelligence-and-multiple-domains-of-religious-belief-evidence-from-a-large-adult-us-sample(233f2530-8c1a-4c2b-972c-1721d626d558)/export.html) with intelligence.
-
I'd be offended but I'm too stoopid. ;D
-
I may be wrong but a r of only -0.24 shows a very weak correlation.
Being a social study I'm not expecting a r close to -1 or 1 but -0.25 is still very low.
-
I'd be offended but I'm too stoopid. ;D
And maybe one day you will sense what that means
-
Don't forget to look at the stats referring to iq and race.
-
I may be wrong but a r of only -0.24 shows a very weak correlation.
Being a social study I'm not expecting a r close to -1 or 1 but -0.25 is still very low.
-0.24 is very strong correlation in terms of IQ.
An IQ of 120 (very bright) is only 20 points away from an IQ of 100 (average). A difference of 20%. Small in absolute numbers but makes a massive difference in terms of IQ.
Don't forget to look at the stats referring to iq and race.
If I remember rightly, the meta-analysis concerns studies on American Protestants.
-
I'd be offended but I'm too stoopid. ;D
Just kick that 'god' particle out of your brain
-
-0.24 is very strong correlation in terms of IQ.
An IQ of 120 (very bright) is only 20 points away from an IQ of 100 (average). A difference of 20%. Small in absolute numbers but makes a massive difference in terms of IQ.
Much like the Richter scale used for rating earthquakes, the increase in IQ is exponential.
-
-0.24 is very strong correlation in terms of IQ.
An IQ of 120 (very bright) is only 20 points away from an IQ of 100 (average). A difference of 20%. Small in absolute numbers but makes a massive difference in terms of IQ.
A minus r shows a negative correlation, but -0.24 doesn't show a strong linear association. It shows correlation, yes, but a weak one.
-
A minus r shows a negative correlation, but -0.24 doesn't show a strong linear association. It shows correlation, yes, but a weak one.
Yep, it should be -0.6 or 'less' at least for statistical relevance.
-
An IQ of 120 (very bright) is only 20 points away from an IQ of 100 (average). A difference of 20%. Small in absolute numbers but makes a massive difference in terms of IQ.
It's higher than 20%. An IQ of 120 is 1.33 standard deviations above the average, therefore around only 9% of the population is expected to have an IQ higher than 120, versus the 50% expected to have a IQ higher than 100.
-
IQ and religion = oxymoron
-
Yep, it should be -0.6 or 'less' at least for statistical relevance.
You are thinking of p-values, which should be 0.05 or less. The higher the R value, the stronger the relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables.
-
You are thinking of p-values, which should be 0.05 or less. The higher the R value, the stronger the relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables.
Errr no, as the OP writes: "significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity"
-
Errr no, as the OP writes: "significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity"
Err yes, low p-values mean there is a statistically significant relationship between two variables. That relationship can be positive or negative. The R-squared value explains the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables explained by the model. Again, that relationship can be positive or negative.
-
You are thinking of p-values, which should be 0.05 or less. The higher the R value, the stronger the relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variables.
He's right, social studies rarely get a r higher than 0.6-0.7. In this case, since there's a negative correlation, r should be at least -0.6 or less, e.g. -0.7 to be considered a strong negative correlation.
-
Err yes, low p-values mean there is a statistically significant relationship between two variables. That relationship can be positive or negative. R values explain the strength of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables explained by the model. Again, that relationship can be positive or negative.
Since I'm no rocket scientist, thank you for explaining this, BUT.. isn't a 'negative association' the same as a 'negative correlation', like -for example' correl({1,2,3},{3,2,1]) = -1 ?
-
-0.24 is very strong correlation in terms of IQ.
An IQ of 120 (very bright) is only 20 points away from an IQ of 100 (average). A difference of 20%. Small in absolute numbers but makes a massive difference in terms of IQ.
If I remember rightly, the meta-analysis concerns studies on American Protestants.
I find it amusing that your post is meant to "prove" religious folks are less intelligent (and therefore "prove" your enlightened brilliance) and you cannot even interpret the statistical results correctly. Fail.
-
I find it amusing that your post is meant to "prove" religious folks are less intelligent (and therefore "prove" your enlightened brilliance) and you cannot even interpret the statistical results correctly. Fail.
My interpretation is sound. A small difference in IQ points, which is part of the correlation, is significant in IQ terms. The r amount seems negligible but probably respectable for a social study.
-
IQ and religion = oxymoron
LOL.
-
Religion and racism and low IQ go hand in hand
-
Religion and racism and low IQ go hand in hand
-
And maybe one day you will sense what that means
It means, that I have a sense of humor and that I am not a S.N.A.G. like so many here. In truth, you may well be in their numbers.
No "smilie" here, kid. Nah...I still have a sense of humor. ;D In fact here:
S.N.A.G. --Sensitive New Age Guy.
-
Just kick that 'god' particle out of your brain
By now you should know that particular item is kept within the heart, not the brain. I am who I am.
-
By now you should know that particular item is kept within the heart, not the brain. I am who I am.
Within the heart is what romantic people tend to believe (with their brains)
Yes, you are who you are, which is good, but every day we're making small internal changes.
-
By now you should know that particular item is kept within the heart, not the brain. I am who I am.
I am that I am.
-
Within the heart is what romantic people tend to believe (with their brains)
Yes, you are who you are, which is good, but every day we're making small internal changes.
I question my faith on a nearly daily basis and to date have no problem with doing so, my friend. One of the smartest men I have ever known was an Atheist and a dear friend.
-
I am that I am.
Mine was a play on those words. Some might say it was more Popeye than God. Given that I am mortal I would go with Popeye. ;D
-
Does anybody remember the "Why You Can't Win Arguments Online"? Well here it is again.
-
Mine was a play on those words. Some might say it was more Popeye than God. Given that I am mortal I would go with Popeye. ;D
LOL!
Ok.
-
http://psr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/08/02/1088868313497266.abstract
Abstract
"A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices."
Yep theists are dumb and atheists are smart....super old news.
Here's another random study to chew on:
http://www.livescience.com/51192-nuts-peanuts-protect-against-death.html (http://www.livescience.com/51192-nuts-peanuts-protect-against-death.html)
-
Or here you go.....bibliotards are also racists:
http://mic.com/articles/29397/religious-people-tend-to-be-more-racist-study-finds#.7wb9HbwkA (http://mic.com/articles/29397/religious-people-tend-to-be-more-racist-study-finds#.7wb9HbwkA)
-
Or religion and sexism:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045317/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045317/)
-
Or religion and obesity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358928/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358928/)
-
Or religion and depression:
http://www.alternet.org/are-religious-people-more-depressed (http://www.alternet.org/are-religious-people-more-depressed)
-
Of course theists are dumb, you literally have to turn a part of your brain off to think as they do. Imagine looking at the complexity of the Universe and saying to yourself "I wonder how that works" and responding with "dunno, a God did it" never to explore further. If they weren't so self righteous and determined to control everyone else I would feel sorry for them, but since they are such pains in the arses I would be happy to feed them to Lions. ;D
-
Or here you go.....bibliotards are also racists:
http://mic.com/articles/29397/religious-people-tend-to-be-more-racist-study-finds#.7wb9HbwkA (http://mic.com/articles/29397/religious-people-tend-to-be-more-racist-study-finds#.7wb9HbwkA)
MoS my friend, as John would say, just because someone's an Atheist or a Christian doesn't give them the right to be an asshole. Nothing that the Christ said is worthy of derision but rather, emulation.
I have gotten to the point that when I sense stupidity here I simply answer in kind, which all too often is less than kind. But then, most assholists (i.e., poor representatives of Atheism) expect us to turn the other cheek. I tell them I do that only for people that slap me for His sake, not because they're buttwipes.
You are a better man than I.
-
Or religion and poverty:
http://thehumanist.com/news/national/why-are-the-poor-more-religious (http://thehumanist.com/news/national/why-are-the-poor-more-religious)
-
Pick a desired negative correlation with religion and [insert topic] and you'll find "a study".......pick your poison.
-
I question my faith on a nearly daily basis and to date have no problem with doing so, my friend. One of the smartest men I have ever known was an Atheist and a dear friend.
All of that is good to hear and it confirms my view on you, being a thoughtful and honest person. It's good to stay in touch with people with other beliefs, as long as there's mutual respect.
-
MoS my friend, as John would say, just because someone's an Atheist or a Christian doesn't give them the right to be an asshole. Nothing that the Christ said is worthy of derision but rather, emulation.
I have gotten to the point that when I sense stupidity here I simply answer in kind, which all too often is less than kind. But then, most assholists (i.e., poor representatives of Atheism) expect us to turn the other cheek. I tell them I do that only for people that slap me for His sake, not because they're buttwipes.
You are a better man than I.
I hear you and I understand.
I'm not a better man than you or any of the folks on this board.
Now I'm certainly dumber than some LOL!!
-
So in the end the "studies" clearly indicate that those that love God are poor, dumb, uneducated, racist, sexist, depressed fatties.
And those that hate God (excuse me, can't hate what doesn't exist ;)) are wealthy, smart, educated, tolerant, happy, fit folks geared towards equality.
Oh yeah, I forgot the obligatory response to my posts in this thread: meltdown....tl/dr
-
So in the end the "studies" clearly indicate that those that love God are poor, dumb, uneducated, racist, sexist, depressed fatties.
And those that hate God (excuse me, can't hate what doesn't exist ;)) are wealthy, smart, educated, tolerant, happy, fit folks geared towards equality.
Guess you're too dumb to understand how statistics work (hint: not black/white, but grey)
-
I hear you and I understand.
I'm not a better man than you or any of the folks on this board.
Now I'm certainly dumber than some LOL!!
Your faith is most likely stronger than mine but I continuously put the welding torch to the cracks I cause and hope that the weld is stronger than the surrounding material. I think, not just believe, that God doesn't mind if we question Him as elsewise why would be created as we were, in His image but with a mind and a will of our own? I must use all I have been given by my parents, my friends and by God.
Unfortunately for some here and in the real world, that would included a sense of humor and a way with words. I can thank my mom and John for the latter. The former comes from life. ;D
Be well.
-
Einstein's writings about "God" went up for auction
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/11/albert-einstein-was-no-atheist-27-letters-up-for-a/
-
Guess you're too dumb to understand how statistics work (hint: not black/white, but grey)
If I told you I have taken university level statistics along with other advanced math courses and was successful in all classes and graduated with a degree would it make a bit of difference LOL?
No worries, I already know the answer. :)
-
Einstein's writings about "God" went up for auction
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/11/albert-einstein-was-no-atheist-27-letters-up-for-a/
Yes, he had a complicated notion that was similar to God as found in the philosophy of Spinoza. It had little to do with what theists believe in. There is no point in pray to his God, because it would like praying to the law of gravity.
Here is an excerpt from the letters:
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. … I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being,”
-
The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself.
-
The only statistics you can trust are those you falsified yourself.
Well, when it comes to statistics concerning religion it's really simple:
whichever studies conclude that religion is negative are correct.
whichever studies conclude that religion is positive are incorrect.
-
Ok, enough of this troll thread for one night. :)
-
Well, when it comes to statistics concerning religion it's really simple:
whichever studies conclude that religion is negative are correct.
whichever studies conclude that religion is positive are incorrect.
Come on.
Nothing is inherently positive or negative.
Everything has 2 sides to it.
-
Yes, he had a complicated notion of God that was similar to God as found in the philosophy of Spinoza. It had little to do with the God theists believe in.
Here is an excerpt:
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. … I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being,”
I would say that Einstein thought along this line - The only people that know the truth of it all are dead. And the dead aren't talking.
-
I would say that Einstein thought along this line - The only people that know the truth of it all are dead. And the dead aren't talking.
What do you mean?
-
What do you mean?
All is supposition, even so the educated side of it. No one except the dead really know what's on "the other side".
And like pirates always say, dead men tell no tales.
-
All is supposition, even so the educated side of it. No one except the dead really know what's on "the other side".
And like pirates always say, dead men tell no tales.
Obviously, not what Einstein was saying. What a bullshit, smart-ass quip.
Here's what Einstein has said:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E01EFDD1530E33ABC4D51DFB2668382639EDE)
-
Guess you're too dumb to understand how statistics work (hint: not black/white, but grey)
No, he's correctly summarizing the trove of "studies" designed to show how idiotic religious people are. For some reason, the atheistic feel a compulsion to prove their superiority over religious folks. Personally, I just feel that they are being fucking assholes and probably need an epic beating that I would be proud to deliver. I promise to pray to my "spaghetti monster God" with each haymaker I plant upside their heads.
Here's another study that proves a positive correlation between atheism and being a fucking douchebag: http://gofuckyourself.com
-
Obviously, not what Einstein was saying. What a bullshit, smart-ass quip.
Here's what Einstein has said:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E01EFDD1530E33ABC4D51DFB2668382639EDE)
Case closed regarding Einstein.
What is with you people? Why do you insist upon trading poorly orchestrated insults? All is a supposition, including what I said about Einstein, Einstein.
Like I said but you refuse to accept, none of us will know the truth until we breathe our last. I suppose that bothers you. You will say it doesn't, but then you are only human.
"Bullshit, smartass quip". Okie dokie, smokie! ;D
-
No, he's correctly summarizing the trove of "studies" designed to show how idiotic religious people are. For some reason, the atheistic feel a compulsion to prove their superiority over religious folks. Personally, I just feel that they are being fucking assholes and probably need an epic beating that I would be proud to deliver. I promise to pray to my "spaghetti monster God" with each haymaker I plant upside their heads.
Here's another study that proves a positive correlation between atheism and being a fucking douchebag: http://gofuckyourself.com
Haha, touche to the max
-
No, he's correctly summarizing the trove of "studies" designed to show how idiotic religious people are. For some reason, the atheistic feel a compulsion to prove their superiority over religious folks. Personally, I just feel that they are being fucking assholes and probably need an epic beating that I would be proud to deliver. I promise to pray to my "spaghetti monster God" with each haymaker I plant upside their heads.
Here's another study that proves a positive correlation between atheism and being a fucking douchebag: http://gofuckyourself.com
up the dose recently?
:D
-
I was under the impression most users or at least a considerable number of them were "religious" not because of low assumed IQ but because of all the forms of sexism I find on here that very much correlates with religiosity...
Although bodybuilding and judeo-christian religiosity is an oxymoron too...
-
Well, when it comes to statistics concerning religion it's really simple:
whichever studies conclude that religion is negative are correct.
whichever studies conclude that religion is positive are incorrect.
This was a meta-analysis- hence the researchers have done the counting for you and concluded that overall, the negative association is robust and generalizable.
NN
-
Getbig is a religion.
Which explains a lot I suppose.
-
I was under the impression most users or at least a considerable number of them were "religious" not because of low assumed IQ but because of all the forms of sexism I find on here that very much correlates with religiosity...
Although bodybuilding and judeo-christian religiosity is an oxymoron too...
Well, some atheists hate faggs like you as well and you're quite the hypocrite schmoe with your homoerotic postings on the Random BB pics thread.
-
What is with you people? Why do you insist upon trading poorly orchestrated insults? All is a supposition, including what I said about Einstein, Einstein.
Like I said but you refuse to accept, none of us will know the truth until we breathe our last. I suppose that bothers you. You will say it doesn't, but then you are only human.
"Bullshit, smartass quip". Okie dokie, smokie! ;D
Your claim may be untrue for reasons you may not have thought about. I recommend that you read Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat": http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf
Then consider again. Perhaps if there were some "after-life" existence where some part of what you were in your prior life lived on, but in a different physical form. It would perhaps no longer be the same "you" who could know the answer to the question posed in your previous form of existence. You may infact be unable to represent the question cognitively in the same way your previous biological brain represented it :).
NN
-
Here's an incomplete list of famous christian (mostly catholic) scientists.
(http://i.imgur.com/NA9gvTB.gif?1)
Honorable mention of Fr. Georges Lemaître founder of the Big Bang and also expansion of the universe theory.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Lemaitre.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
-
What never ceases to amuse me, are people with genuine metaphysical questions, who look at the universe and ascribe god as a first cause. But when you ask the obvious question:"but who created god?", their answer invariably goes along the lines of: "he is eternal and requires no creator".
In one fell swoop, they neatly square away everything, by sticking their heads back into the sand from whence it came!
-
Here's an incomplete list of famous christian (mostly catholic) scientists.
(http://i.imgur.com/NA9gvTB.gif?1)
Honorable mention of Fr. Georges Lemaître founder of the Big Bang and also expansion of the universe theory.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Lemaitre.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
talk about cover all bases, if you fuck up at science, just believe in God, you will be fine.
-
What never ceases to amuse me, are people with genuine metaphysical questions, who look at the universe and ascribe god as a first cause. But when you ask the obvious question:"but who created god?", their answer invariably goes along the lines of: "he is eternal and requires no creator".
In one fell swoop, they neatly square away everything, by sticking their heads back into the sand from whence it came!
I personally think that is a terrible question.
There is nothing in the physical world that shows any remote evidence towards a "start" or creation, at all. That is likely a human concept that will quite possibly eventually have no true place in science. Everything can be tracked to merely changing form, which can be attributed to general interaction with other bits of "stuff" and the startling implication of "never" an end and the constant flux of interaction indicates that you will absolutely know consciousness again.
There is no evidence of any creation whatsoever. There is no evidence of the word "nothing" holding true, anywhere.
When you start to contemplate whether our language is in fact leading us to believe in false concepts (ie, creation, nothing etc), things become less paradoxical.
Also, they become highly less scary in terms of this idea that you must grasp to the idea that you will live on, beyond death - because it is 100% true that we know of nothing that is "destroyed" in the act of death, other than the configuration of the components that make you up.
-
It is a great question to ask of such a terrible solution.
-
What never ceases to amuse me, are people with genuine metaphysical questions, who look at the universe and ascribe god as a first cause. But when you ask the obvious question:"but who created god?", their answer invariably goes along the lines of: "he is eternal and requires no creator".
In one fell swoop, they neatly square away everything, by sticking their heads back into the sand from whence it came!
Basically it is very easy...
they create a concept (god) in their mind.
Therefore they are the creator of god (a concept) themselves.
Nevertheless they fail to realize it.
Also "God" is "Dog" backwards which should also give food for thought.
-
Basically it is very easy...
they create a concept (god) in their mind.
Therefore they are the creator of god (a concept) themselves.
Nevertheless they fail to realize it.
Also "God" is "Dog" backwards which should also give food for thought.
Really?
Why?
-
Really?
Why?
I don't know.
Maybe someone can solve the puzzle.
-
I don't know.
Maybe someone can solve the puzzle.
Dog and God are to words derived from Old English, they have no connection to each other at all, they are two words that people made up to describe something.
We call a cat a cat because some people decided that's what we would call it.
I have seen the "God is dog spelt backwards" quote may times, I always ask why they quote it and as yet no one has ever answered properly with a reasoned explanation.
-
Dog and God are to words derived from Old English, they have no connection to each other at all, they are two words that people made up to describe something.
We call a cat a cat because some people decided that's what we would call it.
I have seen the "God is dog spelt backwards" quote may times, I always ask why they quote it and as yet no one has ever answered properly with a reasoned explanation.
I thought about it for a long time.
If it is by intent, etc...
I couldn't come up with a solution.
-
Judging by the comments, the No faith - Higher IQ correlation clearly does not apply here..
-
Judging by the comments, the No faith - Higher IQ correlation clearly does not apply here..
In reality it applies nowhere.
The more people appear in your statistic the more it will even out.
In the end it's going to be even.
Unless you manipulated it somehow which I think this particular statistic is.
Also IQ doesn't tell that much.
-
In reality it applies nowhere.
The more people appear in your statistic the more it will even out.
In the end it's going to be even.
Unless you manipulated it somehow which I think this particular statistic is.
Also IQ doesn't tell that much.
Wrong on all accounts! A statistical relation in the form of a correlation, regression or some other association measure does not "even" out with increasing sample size. Two things happen in such a case:
1. The estimate of the strength and direction of the association becomes more precise (the statistical model becomes more accurate)
2. The generalizability of the association from sample to population becomes more robust (lower p values).
Thus, increasing sample size leads to the opposite of what you suggest.
And- IQ is one of the most important and robust predictors of academic and work performance as well as socio-economic status.
NN
-
Wrong on all accounts! A statistical relation in the form of a correlation, regression or some other association measure does not "even" out with increasing sample size. Two things happen in such a case:
1. The estimate of the strength and direction of the association becomes more precise (the statistical model becomes more precise)
2. The generalizability of the association from sample to population becomes more robust (lower p values).
And- IQ is one of the most important and robust predictors of academic and work performance as well as socio-economic status.
NN
^^Even out in terms of accuracy.
Example:
I have 3 people in my statistic.
1 is smart and atheist.
2 are not that smart and believe in religion.
This will not reflect the actual state of affairs.
Therefore you should have maybe 100 of each nation at least.
Regarding IQ:
IQ scores not accurate marker of intelligence, study shows (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/)
-
I don't think religious people are less intelligent. Some weeks ago I read an article that says religious people are more intelligent than non-believers... ???
Other more interesting finding is that there's a region in the brain where critical thinking takes place, I think it is called the hippocampus... it shows less activity in religious (fundamentalist) people compared to that of non-believers. Apparently, because of this, their hippocampus shrinks a bit.
That's why people with rigid religious beliefs have problems to question their beliefs or accept it when others question their beliefs.
-
I fail to see what P-values have to do with correlation, this is not a test of significance.
-
The dumb shall inherit the Earth.
-
^^Even out in terms of accuracy.
Example:
I have 3 people in my statistic.
1 is smart and atheist.
2 are not that smart and believe in religion.
This will not reflect the actual state of affairs.
Therefore you should have maybe 100 of each nation at least.
Regarding IQ:
IQ scores not accurate marker of intelligence, study shows (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iq-scores-not-accurate-marker-of-intelligence-study-shows/)
The meta-analytic approach deals with these matters- in fact that is the point of it. : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis
NN
-
I fail to see what P-values have to do with correlation, this is not a test of significance.
As I wrote: increasing sample size leads to less bias and more precision regarding the estimate of the correlation. Further, it leads to less uncertainty regarding generalizability from sample to population through diminishing p-values. (less chance of both type 1 and type 2 errors).
NN
-
As I wrote: increasing sample size leads to less bias and more precision regarding the estimate of the correlation. Further, it leads to less uncertainty regarding generalizability from sample to population through diminishing p-values. (less chance of both type 1 and type 2 errors).
NN
Nope. A bigger sample means the data will be closer to the normal curve (Central limit theorem) thus when you use it to calculate percentages, probabilities, etc, results will be more accurate. This doesn't translate in lower p-values, for instance, you can have a n = 1000 perfectly fitting the normal curve, but if there's not statistical significance between the things being measured, then P-values aren't going to be on the low side.
Increasing the sample size doesn't result in lower p-values.
-
Nope. A bigger sample means the data will be closer to the normal curve (Central limit theorem) thus when you use it to calculate percentages, probabilities, etc, results will be more accurate. This doesn't translate in lower p-values, for instance, you can have a n = 1000 perfectly fitting the normal curve, but if there's not statistical significance between the things being measured, then P-values aren't going to be on the low side.
Increasing the sample size doesn't result in lower p-values.
You are wrong. The parameter estimates of the model becomes more accurate and the p-values gets smaller with increasing sample size, assuming there is a true population effect. This is basic inferential statistics. This is why p-values are of little interest in very large samples- practically irrelevantly small effects (associations, differences of means etc) become significant.
Further, although not very important for my argument, what you say about the normal curve is also wrong as not all natural distributions follow a gaussian distribution. For instance event-data, such as number of road accidents in a given time-period, are Poisson-distributed.
NN
-
You are wrong. The parameter estimates of the model becomes more accurate and the p-values gets smaller with increasing sample size, assuming there is a true population effect. This is basic inferential statistics.
Further, what you say about the normal curve is also wrong as not all natural distributions follow a gaussian distribution. For instance event-data, such as number of road accidents in a given time-period, are Poisson-distributed.
NN
Sure, not every set of data follows the normal distribution, e.g. Income. I was talking about datat that follows the normal distribution. The bigger the sample the more it fits the normal curve.
I need to read about p-values cause as far as I remember they had little to do with the sample size. I may be wrong of course. : )
-
You are wrong. The parameter estimates of the model becomes more accurate and the p-values gets smaller with increasing sample size, assuming there is a true population effect. This is basic inferential statistics. This is why p-values are of little interest in very large samples- practically irrelevantly small effects (associations, differences of means etc) become significant.
Further, although not very important for my argument, what you say about the normal curve is also wrong as not all natural distributions follow a gaussian distribution. For instance event-data, such as number of road accidents in a given time-period, are Poisson-distributed.
NN
Coleman OWNS Yates. Deal with it.
-
As I wrote: increasing sample size leads to less bias and more precision regarding the estimate of the correlation. Further, it leads to less uncertainty regarding generalizability from sample to population through diminishing p-values. (less chance of both type 1 and type 2 errors).
NN
Nope. A bigger sample means the data will be closer to the normal curve (Central limit theorem) thus when you use it to calculate percentages, probabilities, etc, results will be more accurate. This doesn't translate in lower p-values, for instance, you can have a n = 1000 perfectly fitting the normal curve, but if there's not statistical significance between the things being measured, then P-values aren't going to be on the low side.
Increasing the sample size doesn't result in lower p-values.
You are wrong. The parameter estimates of the model becomes more accurate and the p-values gets smaller with increasing sample size, assuming there is a true population effect. This is basic inferential statistics. This is why p-values are of little interest in very large samples- practically irrelevantly small effects (associations, differences of means etc) become significant.
Further, although not very important for my argument, what you say about the normal curve is also wrong as not all natural distributions follow a gaussian distribution. For instance event-data, such as number of road accidents in a given time-period, are Poisson-distributed.
NN
Sure, not every set of data follows the normal distribution, e.g. Income. I was talking about datat that follows the normal distribution. The bigger the sample the more it fits the normal curve.
I need to read about p-values cause as far as I remember they had little to do with the sample size. I may be wrong of course. : )
And in the end you can throw out all statistics or find "studies" that indicate the opposite of "religion bad" and the VAST majority of the unbelieving world will always.....ALWAYS...... remain firm on the following:
theists = dumb
atheists = smart
The fact that studies have been conducted around this general notion of "religion bad" baffles me because with or without the "studies" virtually no one in the unbelieving community will ever think differently about theists LOL. It will always be the following:
-
These studies are important because they can help give direction to children and people with underdeveloped critical abilities.
-
These studies are important because they can help give direction to children and people with underdeveloped critical abilities.
Yes of course, for the betterment of children and underdeveloped thinkers.
-
Yes of course, for the betterment of children and underdeveloped thinkers.
Precisely, once a mind is indoctrinated it may never recover completely.
-
Precisely, once a mind is indoctrinated it may never recover completely.
Thankfully we have your ilk to cascade the light of truth on these poor wretches.
-
Thankfully we have your ilk to cascade the light of truth on these poor wretches.
You act like a sulking child. A sad spectacle, indeed.
-
You act like a sulking child. A sad spectacle, indeed.
You can insult me if you want. One more and we're done for today.
-
I personally think that is a terrible question.
There is nothing in the physical world that shows any remote evidence towards a "start" or creation, at all. That is likely a human concept that will quite possibly eventually have no true place in science. Everything can be tracked to merely changing form, which can be attributed to general interaction with other bits of "stuff" and the startling implication of "never" an end and the constant flux of interaction indicates that you will absolutely know consciousness again.
There is no evidence of any creation whatsoever. There is no evidence of the word "nothing" holding true, anywhere.
When you start to contemplate whether our language is in fact leading us to believe in false concepts (ie, creation, nothing etc), things become less paradoxical.
Also, they become highly less scary in terms of this idea that you must grasp to the idea that you will live on, beyond death - because it is 100% true that we know of nothing that is "destroyed" in the act of death, other than the configuration of the components that make you up.
The components you speak of give rise to consciousness. Consciousness, like everything else, is a result of natural processes. When they are destroyed, so is consciousness.
-
The components you speak of give rise to consciousness. Consciousness, like everything else, is a result of natural processes. When they are destroyed, so is consciousness.
Which natural processes? How do they interact with one another? What initiates the processes?
-
The components you speak of give rise to consciousness. Consciousness, like everything else, is a result of natural processes. When they are destroyed, so is consciousness.
Not a fan of Cartesian duality then...
-
i'm not an idiot, but i hope that there's a heaven and pray there ain't no hell ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
i'm not an idiot, but i hope that there's a heaven and pray there ain't no hell ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
You can't have one without the other I guess.
;D
-
Not a fan of Cartesian duality then...
You mean that the mind can exist outside the body?
It probably can, in some sort of vat :)
-
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Critical thinking.