Skip to main content

No Mention of Intelligence or Poverty

Although many people are quick to point out the supposed benefits to religion, few people mention its relation to intelligence, or at least, lack thereof. Generally, the highly intelligent are not religious, and I have heard from some religious spokespeople, that their ranks are coming from the least intelligent. Considering America's dismal performance on international comparisons of academic abilities, i.e., TIMSS- 12th grade (near adult, when it really matters), one could wonder if the swing to the right had more to do with ignorance than with any supposed benefit.

From my own, non-academic, statistical analysis, educational performance seems to be related to levels of economic inequality, such that countries with higher Gini coefficients, measures of economic inequality, have lower TIMSS performance and lower IQ. The US has the highest Gini coefficient in the developed world. Additionally, you could recognize that religion is seemingly the salve to poverty. China's rural poor are turning to Falun Gong, and in some ways, something similar is happening here, such that the rural and economically disenfranchised are turning to god.

I have not vetted the following for veracity, but following are links supporting the the IQ correlation:

IQ by Religiosity (Country)

http://www.w-uh.com/posts/031226a-religion_vs_IQ.html

Intelligence and Religious beliefs - Studies (redundant)

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert M. Sapolsky My rating: 5 of 5 stars I finished reading this crying. It is a work of neurobiology, social science, anthropology, and history, but ultimately it is a work of great humanity, suggesting ways that humans, our groups, our systems, and our societies can be made better. View all my reviews

Don't learn to code. Learn to think.

A response to  Don't learn to code. Learn to think. : Below is is my usual response when I see an article stating that everyone should learn to code:  Rather than programming, it is more important to impart the thinking of computer science (CS) than a specific implementation. Programming can be an end point for some students, but it is likely that programming itself will be increasingly automated, so that one needs more the general concepts common in CS. Even then, programming itself is to some degree a grunt task that one progresses beyond:  The following are typical components of a CS degree: algorithms & flowcharting systems thinking logical systems and set theory object-orientation & patterns probability, statistics, mathematics All of the above can be useful in an increasingly automated and data-driven world.

A Journey — if You Dare — Into the Minds of Silicon Valley Programmers

My responses in a NY Times comment section for the book, Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World by Clive Thompson : #1 - Link Although I've been a software developer for 15 years, and for longer alternating between a project manager, team lead, or analyst, mostly in finance, and now with a cancer center, I found it funny that you blame the people doing the coding for not seeing the harm it could cause. First, most scientific advancement has dark elements, and it is usually not the science but how it is used and sold by business people that is the problem. This leads to the second problem, in that it is not coding that is in itself problematic, but specifically how technology is harnessed to sell. It is normal and desirable to track users, to log actions, to collect telemetry, so as to monitor systems, respond to errors, and to develop new features, but that normal engineering practice has been used to surveil users for the purpose of selling. Blaming