The future of the Republican Party

[SkinWalker]

The plain fact is that Garfield has run up against a wall of rational discourse to which he cannot get around without resorting to red herrings and straw man arguments.

 

He will not attempt to deal with the data as presented since this is empirical, therefore he attacks the character of the researcher. This, my friends, is a dishonest tact. I suggest we not feed into Garfield's additional red herrings and straw man arguments, this is what he would like: discuss anything but the empirical data already presented.

 

Such is the future of the Republican party? Will conservatism continue to be faced with the influx of those with weak cognitive abilities while opposition parties see the inclusion of those with higher cognitive function?

 

It would seem this thread is demonstrative of that trend.

 

ET assertions appear to hold. That is to say, Garfield:

 

"A) [doesn]'t understand it

or

B) [is] aware that [he] would be unable to refute it and would have to accept it as empirically valid."

[Rogue Nine]

Such is the future of the Republican party? Will conservatism continue to be faced with the influx of those with weak cognitive abilities while opposition parties see the inclusion of those with higher cognitive function?

 

It would seem this thread is demonstrative of that trend.

I'd like to think that there are more reasonable conservatives less inclined to use fallacious reasoning than Garfield out there. It's just that none of them seem to frequent this board.

 

So yes, on topic, it seems the future of the Republican Party doesn't look too hot right now.

[SkinWalker]

I actually have more optimism for the Republican party, which I tried (ineffectively perhaps) to convey in an earlier post. I think the "alleged base" is starting to become a thing of the past and modern, younger republicans are starting to see that there must be some balance between progressive posture and conservative desires.

 

In order to make the Republican party an appealing choice for the educated, they'll need to start embracing intelligent and rational positions and marginalizing the irrational and less intelligent.

[Tommycat]

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. **

 

It fails to break it out by how religous they are, and whether they are fundamentalists.

 

Seems to me if you pick and choose where you get your data you can manipulate your data aquisition to skew your results.

 

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. Nor do I judge their worth by the level of education. I have a buddy who is an ASE Certified Master Mechanic. I don't look down my nose at him because he didn't attend college. And shame on you if you do. Which it certainly appears you do. You guys put so much emphasys on IQ and education.

 

*note: easy to understand as the relation of religious to athiest in the US is a similar number

**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?

[SkinWalker]

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.

[GarfieldJL]

SkinWalker your sources have no research integrity, and I believe you're aware of that fact. I'm finding your, Rogue Nine's, ET Warrior's, and EnderWiggin's attempt at defamation of charecter to be highly annoying.

 

The fact he picked and chose data invalidates the entire study, it flies in the face of research ethics and I believe you already know that as well.

[SkinWalker]

So ignoring the fact that Nyborg compiled the data and you fallaciously dismiss it on the grounds that it is easier for you to erect a straw man regarding his past research, how then do you reconcile the fact that, among American adolescents, there is a negative correlation between ASVAB scores of intelligence (the very tests administered and trusted to provide intelligence quotients re-termed as GT scores by the military which then qualifies people for job positions) and their religiosity? The more religious someone is, the less they score on the ASVAB.

[Q]

I'm wondering if this study is more revealing of different thought processes and their respective consequences rather than actual intelligence.

[SkinWalker]

The study itself makes no assertion of why, but seeks only to demonstrate the correlation between cognitive function and what people are willing to accept with regard to beliefs.

 

Pentecostals, for instance, are among the more dogmatic of religious adherents and I don't think it would be a stretch or generalization to imagine that the vast and overwhelming majority of this denomination are conservative republicans.

 

Pentecostals, however, also subscribe to the most fantastic of beliefs -things that are completely without intellectual merit or expectation of being true by those who are among the population who have higher cognitive function. Things like snake-handling, speaking in tongues (glossolalia), young-earth creationism, etc.

 

The prediction of the study is that this group would have a lower IQ (lower cognitive function) than more liberal groups. I actually didn't look at the table in the study before choosing Pentecostal as an example, but it turned out that the prediction holds. Pentecostals scored an average of 101.89 as an IQ whereas atheists scored an average of 111.08.

 

Interestingly enough, and for those that might think so, I'm not asserting atheists are "smartest" nor is Nyborg. Indeed, the data are clear on this: The Episcopal/Angelican group scored the highest IQ at 113.43 with the Jewish denomination a close second at 112.43. Atheists actually placed 3rd and Agnostics 4th with an average IQ of 109.13.

 

When comparing religious denominations, Nyborg rated (by using the ratings of previous authors/studies) denominations as either liberal or dogmatic, defining both thus:

a. Liberal: fairly open, critical, less committed, metaphorical, cultural heritage-type persuasion.

b. Dogmatic: more committed, personal relationship with Jesus, emphasis on sinfulness, explicit rules for behavior and need for atonement.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

SkinWalker your sources have no research integrity, and I believe you're aware of that fact.

yes michelle malkin is far more trustworthy

[Q]

The study itself makes no assertion of why, but seeks only to demonstrate the correlation between cognitive function and what people are willing to accept with regard to beliefs.

 

Pentecostals, for instance, are among the more dogmatic of religious adherents and I don't think it would be a stretch or generalization to imagine that the vast and overwhelming majority of this denomination are conservative republicans.

 

Pentecostals, however, also subscribe to the most fantastic of beliefs -things that are completely without intellectual merit or expectation of being true by those who are among the population who have higher cognitive function. Things like snake-handling, speaking in tongues (glossolalia), young-earth creationism, etc.

 

The prediction of the study is that this group would have a lower IQ (lower cognitive function) than more liberal groups. I actually didn't look at the table in the study before choosing Pentecostal as an example, but it turned out that the prediction holds. Pentecostals scored an average of 101.89 as an IQ whereas atheists scored an average of 111.08.

Well, I don't find this surprising in the least. Anyone willing to handle venomous snakes as a demonstration of their faith qualifies as incredibly stupid, or insane, or a mixture of both. Predictably, several have been bitten and a few have died due to this practice. What is the Pentecostal Church's explanation for this? That their faith wasn't strong enough? I think that my explanation is more likely.

Interestingly enough, and for those that might think so, I'm not asserting atheists are "smartest" nor is Nyborg. Indeed, the data are clear on this: The Episcopal/Angelican group scored the highest IQ at 113.43 with the Jewish denomination a close second at 112.43. Atheists actually placed 3rd and Agnostics 4th with an average IQ of 109.13.

Ah-hah! This is the part you told me about, correct? Very enlightening. Could it be that atheists and agnostics are more dogmatic than Episcopalians, Anglicans and Jews?

[SkinWalker]

Ah-hah! This is the part you told me about, correct? Very enlightening. Could it be that atheists and agnostics are more dogmatic than Episcopalians, Anglicans and Jews?

 

I could be! I've known some very dogmatic atheists in my time

 

I think, however, that it speaks more to the general trend of humans to need spiritual or mysterious explanations, regardless of cognitive function. My area of study in archaeology and anthropology includes ancient religion, cult rituals and belief and what can be inferred about this from the material record of a culture. I also try to compare and contrast ancient cultures with modern with regard to belief and cognition in order to develop good research questions and hypotheses.

[GarfieldJL]

So ignoring the fact that Nyborg compiled the data and you fallaciously dismiss it on the grounds that it is easier for you to erect a straw man regarding his past research, how then do you reconcile the fact that, among American adolescents, there is a negative correlation between ASVAB scores of intelligence (the very tests administered and trusted to provide intelligence quotients re-termed as GT scores by the military which then qualifies people for job positions) and their religiosity? The more religious someone is, the less they score on the ASVAB.

 

The fact he compiled the results throws the results into doubt because for all we know he deliberately selected the subjects in a manner to obtain the results he desired, just like he did for the study he was suspended over.

 

The fact is you can't selectively ignore the fact the person that compiled the data has an integrity problem. The fact the test is a legitimate one is irrelevent if the one conducting the test has a record of deliberately misrepresenting the results.

 

Fact is, I've seen a real-life examples of legitimate tests being used in a manner that throws its credibility into doubt.

 

I'm not going to selectively ignore the facts that your source has a credibility and ethics problem, when any ethical researcher would also toss this scientist's results out the nearest window.

 

In fact in Planning Educational Research, it talks about deliberate bias and distorting research data. I found it on pages 176-178.

 

Title: Educational Research: An Introduction

Main Author: Borg, Walter R.

Edition 5th ed.

Copyright: 1989

Pages 176-178

[ET Warrior]

for all we know he deliberately selected the subjects in a manner to obtain the results he desired,

Since you apparently just skimmed the lengthy post of Skinwalkers that outlined the study in question, I will quote the particularly pertinent part of it that you seem to be either unaware of or unable to comprehend.

 

The data, as we can see in the lengthy and detailed methods section of his paper, aren't from Nyborg's own survey questions, questionnaires, or subjective hypotheses. They are arrived at using existing test scores used by the Department of Defense

So I ask you, do you believe the Department of Defense has been cherry picking the students that they allow to take their tests in order to make it appear as though the dogmatically religious have statistically lower IQs? And if so, what would their motivation be?

 

The fact is you can't selectively ignore the fact the person that compiled the data has an integrity problem. The fact the test is a legitimate one is irrelevent if the one conducting the test has a record of deliberately misrepresenting the results.

Except he did not compile the data, merely analyzed it. He did not conduct any of the tests, he was completely uninvolved in the data collection process. The results exist as they exist, and you are 100% welcome to go through the data yourself and determine at what point in his analysis he is incorrect.

 

However, as has been pretty clearly demonstrated in this thread you are either unwilling or unable to do so (likely for fear of being unable to deny the empiric truths contained in said data), and will instead continue to declare that one past (unrelated) transgression of the researcher whose only involvement with the data was analysis completely nullifies all of it.

[GarfieldJL]

Since you apparently just skimmed the lengthy post of Skinwalkers that outlined the study in question, I will quote the particularly pertinent part of it that you seem to be either unaware of or unable to comprehend.

 

Seriously from what I've read on my own research, the research you and SkinWalker are using is tainted.

 

So I ask you, do you believe the Department of Defense has been cherry picking the students that they allow to take their tests in order to make it appear as though the dogmatically religious have statistically lower IQs? And if so, what would their motivation be?

 

Oh so it was about religious fundamentalists, not people that were merely religious and believed in God... Thanks for admitting that little tidbit.

 

Except he did not compile the data, merely analyzed it. He did not conduct any of the tests, he was completely uninvolved in the data collection process. The results exist as they exist, and you are 100% welcome to go through the data yourself and determine at what point in his analysis he is incorrect.

 

If he handled the data at all that includes analyzing it, the data is tainted.

 

 

However, as has been pretty clearly demonstrated in this thread you are either unwilling or unable to do so (likely for fear of being unable to deny the empiric truths contained in said data), and will instead continue to declare that one past (unrelated) transgression of the researcher whose only involvement with the data was analysis completely nullifies all of it.

 

Actually you just admitted that your side has been misrepresenting the results of the data and furthermore, the person doing the analyzation has gotten in trouble for cherry-picking the results in the past.

[ET Warrior]

Seriously from what I've read on my own research, the research you and SkinWalker are using is tainted.

Oh yeah? What research has that been? Aside from your irrelevant issues with the researchers past as has been repeated ad nauseum?

 

Oh so it was about religious fundamentalists, not people that were merely religious and believed in God... Thanks for admitting that little tidbit.

*sigh* no, it was about all different levels of religiosity, from atheism to fundamentally religious. You would know this if you actually read the study. (Or pretty much any of our posts...)

 

If he handled the data at all that includes analyzing it, the data is tainted.

So if there is ever data collected that proves the existence of your deity of choice and Nyborg looks at it it's suddenly tainted and should be thrown out?

 

Actually you just admitted that your side has been misrepresenting the results of the data

Actually you just put words in my mouth. I made no such statements. Thanks for completely ignoring all of the points in my previous post though, I appreciate being proven correct when I make predictions.

and [you] will instead continue to declare that one past (unrelated) transgression of the researcher whose only involvement with the data was analysis completely nullifies all of it.

[GarfieldJL]

Oh yeah? What research has that been? Aside from your irrelevant issues with the researchers past as has been repeated ad nauseum?

 

Actually that is relevent, whether or not you choose to admit it is your problem.

 

*sigh* no, it was about all different levels of religiosity, from atheism to fundamentally religious. You would know this if you actually read the study.

 

Oh so let me get this straight it was a study geared to justify religious persecution.

 

So if there is ever data collected that proves the existence of your deity of choice and Nyborg looks at it it's suddenly tainted and should be thrown out?

 

Saying that people aren't as intelligent because they believe in God reeks with bias, as would a study that says people that are atheists aren't as intelligent as those that believe in God.

 

Actually you just put words in my mouth. I made no such statements. Thanks for completely ignoring all of the points in my previous post though, I appreciate being proven correct when I make predictions.

 

No, in my opinion, you're only saying that it isn't relevant because of the fact if you had to admit that that incident I'm referring to was relevent it would completely invalidate your evidence to justify your beliefs. If the situation were reversed you'd be saying the same thing I was about the legitimacy of the study being questionable, and unlike you I would actually acknowledge that point.

[True_Avery]

Actually that is relevent, whether or not you choose to admit it is your problem.

The burden of proof is on your shoulders, and you've yet to prove this information has been manipulated. You are going on a personal hunch, and that is not fact.

 

Oh so let me get this straight it was a study geared to justify religious persecution.

So, you didn't actually read the study or Skinwalker's post. That makes your posts easier to understand.

 

Saying that people aren't as intelligent because they believe in God reeks with bias, as would a study that says people that are atheists aren't as intelligent as those that believe in God.

Since you didn't bother reading his post or the study and have instead opted to make yourself look stupid, re-read this:

Interestingly enough, and for those that might think so, I'm not asserting atheists are "smartest" nor is Nyborg. Indeed, the data are clear on this: The Episcopal/Angelican group scored the highest IQ at 113.43 with the Jewish denomination a close second at 112.43. Atheists actually placed 3rd and Agnostics 4th with an average IQ of 109.13.

 

How is closing your eyes and ears and yelling loudly working out for you?

 

No, I'm saying you're only saying that it isn't relevant because of the fact if you had to admit that that incident I'm referring to was relevent it would completely invalidate your evidence to justify your beliefs. If the situation were reversed you'd be saying the same thing I was about the legitimacy of the study being questionable, and unlike you I would actually acknowledge that point.

I could also assume that from the mistakes Fox News may have done with a News story that all of their stories from that point on are invalid. I could assume that since one study managed to screw up, and every study ever made after that is also invalid.

 

The thing is, you have given good reason as to why it -may- be skewed, but you've yet to give proof that it has been. Give us something that says it has been. Give us outrage over a skewed fact. Give us something other than your own speculation and the speculation of the research you never did.

[GarfieldJL]

The burden of proof is on your shoulders, and you've yet to prove this information has been manipulated. You are going on a personal hunch, and that is not fact.

 

Would you want to fly in an airplane where the safety studies were done by someone with a history of skewing the data to make it seem like it was safe when the wings were about to come off?

 

So, you didn't actually read the study or Skinwalker's post. That makes your posts easier to understand.

 

Not all of it, because it violated quite a few smell tests just based on SkinWalker's posts. I did some looking into the guy's background, and found that the man had been suspended for conducting a similar study only it involved genders if I remember correctly.

 

Since you didn't bother reading his post or the study and have instead opted to make yourself look stupid, re-read this:

 

I read part of it, and how it was presented so are you telling me that SkinWalker misrepresented the data? Any studies that have to do with intelligence of people based on race, gender, and/or religion in my book and based on history are usually subject to blatent bias. I'd say the same thing if it had said aetheists aren't as intelligent for not believing in God.

 

How is closing your eyes and ears and yelling loudly working out for you?

 

Pot calling the kettle black there...

 

I could also assume that from the mistakes Fox News may have done with a News story that all of their stories from that point on are invalid. I could assume that since one study managed to screw up, and every study ever made after that is also invalid.

 

Making a mistake is not the same as deliberately distorting data, the person conducting the study was suspended for deliberately tampering with the data.

 

The thing is, you have given good reason as to why it -may- be skewed, but you've yet to give proof that it has been. Give us something that says it has been. Give us outrage over a skewed fact. Give us something other than your own speculation and the speculation of the research you never did.

 

Fact is I don't have to prove anything more than I have, the burden of proof is on the researcher in a research study, if they have compromised their credibility it throws other research of a similar nature into question. That's why getting accused of something like this is such a big deal.

 

That's also the reason why what someone has done in the past is important.

[Vaelastraz]

the burden of proof is on the researcher in a research study

Indeed. And this is exactly what Skinwalker provided us with. I'm sure you've noticed that anyone here but you considers the research study to be empirically valid.

You do not. Please demonstrate why we should believe you. And do so by referring to the empirical data, not Nyborg's history.

 

So far, your treatment of this research study is akin to saying that Harry Potter sucks because Rowling has a history of writing bad books. Without actually having read Harry Potter.

[True_Avery]

Would you want to fly in an airplane where the safety studies were done by someone with a history of skewing the data to make it seem like it was safe when the wings were about to come off?

I'm sure that safety study would never pass regulations. If it said that the wing hanging off is fine, then I doubt it would be allowed on any plane.

 

Find us proof that this has been manipulated. He got suspended for one study because they knew he had manipulated data. His study has passed regulation thus far, which counts for even more in my book because he'll have people breathing down the neck of his research.

 

If he is being so watched and kept on a leash for this, then it would only make sense that his further research would be under an even tougher eye. He has passed thus far.

 

The burden of proof is still on your shoulder to prove, without a doubt, that this information is skewed. You've given opinion and speculation, but nothing else.

 

Not all of it, because it violated quite a few smell tests just based on SkinWalker's posts. I did some looking into the guy's background, and found that the man had been suspended for conducting a similar study only it involved genders if I remember correctly.

You just admitted to creating a strawman. If you don't agree, re-read the definiton of a Strawman.

 

As I proved in my previous post, you did not read Skin's post or read the actual research. Because you couldn't create a valid argument based on anything but speculation, you instead opted to attack his character.

 

You are making assumptions and baseless arguments after not properly looking into what you are arguing. That is a strawman, and it is a poor debating tool.

 

I read part of it, and how it was presented so are you telling me that SkinWalker misrepresented the data?

Sorry, your argument became invalid after "I read part of it".

 

You are making without-a-doubt assumptions on a poster, researcher, and study without properly researching any of them. For all of your so called research skills, you've done little to no research thus far. You have not even bothered to fully read the posts of the people you are debating.

 

Any studies that have to do with intelligence of people based on race, gender, and/or religion in my book and based on history are usually subject to blatent bias.

"Statistically, women buy more tampons than men"

 

That is study based on gender, but it probably isn't skewed unless you have an argument for why men would be buying more than women.

 

"In my book" is speculation and opinion, both of which you have admitted to forming after doing poor research. You have yet, however, to prove "based on history". The burden of that proof is, again, on your shoulders.

 

Your argument is based on speculation, and I'm guessing a person beef with the results. But, from what I pointed out, your beef is misplaced due to not properly researching the data you are refuting.

 

So, again of course it is subject to bias or manipulation. All data is. The thing is, you need to prove that is had been or it is just baseless speculation.

Pot calling the kettle black there...

Says the person who has actually admitted to ignoring facts and posts. I've read all of your posts in this thread, and read the study. Pointing out you have done none does not make me a pot. You are calling me a pot because you are trying to justify not doing any further research so that you can stay within your own boxed opinion.

 

Making a mistake is not the same as deliberately distorting data, the person conducting the study was suspended for deliberately tampering with the data.

So, why hasn't this study been taken down yet?

 

"Tampering with data" would mean more if you understood what data you are trying to disprove.

 

Fact is I don't have to prove anything more than I have, the burden of proof is on the researcher in a research study, if they have compromised their credibility it throws other research of a similar nature into question. That's why getting accused of something like this is such a big deal.

See, that is where you are wrong. Burden of proof is on you in this debate, or you can admit you have nothing more than strawmans to show us. If that is the case, then you may as well stop while you are behind.

 

Then why has this data not been ripped apart and show for being false? You are placing a situation onto something in which there is no proof that situation exists by your admittance.

 

While it is important to question, you would rather attack the possibility than the data and posts in which you have admitted to not reading.

 

Go back and read posts and the sources before digging yourself a deeper hole.

 

------------------------

 

As for your accusations, read more than wikipedia for a change:

http://www1.jp.dk/dok/kh190806/nyborg_report.pdf

 

This is the official report.

 

They found no evidence of Fraud. There is, however, evidence of poor math on two accounts in his paper. He gave unsatisfactory details in a few areas, making them obsolete.

 

It was not that he "manipulated data" as you point out with your poor research. He was suspended for lack of diligence in his research, and presenting an incomplete study.

 

Due to his poor math at that time, some of his final data was mathematically impossible to determine so his study was called obsolete and he was suspended for lack of due diligence.

 

This proves my point that these studies are pulled apart and looked at carefully despite what you say. There have been no official accusations of manipulation, fraud, etc on the study of God and Intelligence.

 

Your "I put him into google and found problems with the first 2 links" theory are correct as you pointed our earlier in the thread, but you did no research past that. Come back later when you understand what you are debating, and understand your side of this instead of parroting wikipedia.

 

And, before you try, I will continue to point out what you have not read from now on in this thread. It would be advisable for you to re-read everything in this thread that you ignored before continuing.

[GarfieldJL]

Indeed. And this is exactly what Skinwalker provided us with. I'm sure you've noticed that anyone here but you considers the research study to be empirically valid.

 

Thing is, we don't know if the research is genuine due to his history. That's the thing about trust, I can argue you all accept it because it's what you want to believe as atheists.

 

You do not. Please demonstrate why we should believe you. And do so by referring to the empirical data, not Nyborg's history.

 

When there is a history of discrimination of people of religion in academia as I've illustrated, the question becomes also how many people answered the survey honestly?

 

So far, your treatment of this research study is akin to saying that Harry Potter sucks because Rowling has a history of writing bad books. Without actually having read Harry Potter.

 

Bad example because Rowling writes fictional works, it isn't a legit comparison.

 

@ True_Avery

 

I didn't just use wikipedia, I used the news link from the University where he worked. That is more relevant than a random link you are posting where I have no idea where it is from.

[True_Avery]

Thing is, we don't know if the research is genuine due to his history. That's the thing about trust, I can argue you all accept it because it's what you want to believe as atheists.

Oh, so you can't think up a good argument so you ad hominem attack us for our "atheism."

 

Nice try. Care to dig yourself a deeper hole? I'm sure there are more baseless arguments you can throw at us.

 

And yet AGAIN your make another baseless accusation without even bothering to research. Here, I'll post it again to give you the chance to read it:

 

"Interestingly enough, and for those that might think so, I'm not asserting atheists are "smartest" nor is Nyborg. Indeed, the data are clear on this: The Episcopal/Angelican group scored the highest IQ at 113.43 with the Jewish denomination a close second at 112.43. Atheists actually placed 3rd and Agnostics 4th with an average IQ of 109.13." -Skinwalker

 

Now, if we wanted to believe this just because we are "atheists", then doesn't that contradict your argument? Atheists are 3rd, and agnostics are 4th. If "atheists" are so intent on being #1, then why are we "atheists" apparently content with research that says they are #3?

 

Again, please do some research and actually read posts.

 

And, for the record, I do not consider myself an atheist.

 

When there is a history of discrimination of people of religion in academia as I've illustrated, the question becomes also how many people answered the survey honestly?

Wow. You really have no argument at all if you are going to nit-pick speculation that low. If you are going to go as far as to say the participants lied, then you may as well no longer believe in anything as your argument basically states that nobody tells the truth.

 

And you call us determined to believe this?

 

Also, what academia have you illustrated? All you have done is blanket state "academia" and call them out for something you have yet to provide proof for beyond 2 isolated cases.

 

@ True_Avery

 

I didn't just use wikipedia, I used the news link from the University where he worked. That is more relevant than a random link you are posting where I have no idea where it is from.

If you had used or even read news links, you would have known that the University put out a report on his work, of which I posted above.

 

If you had bothered to read my link or do any research on the report you are using for he basis of your argument, you would know that. If you had even bothered actually read the wiki article you would know that.

 

And who was it by? The Dean of Social Sciences of the University, the Chairman of the same, and 2 professors from Gothenburg and Copenhagen University.

http://www.au.dk/en/news/210906a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_Nyborg

 

So, again, instead of looking at the link and then dismissing my entire argument, why don't you actually do some research with those skills you keep talking on about on the person you are trying to discredit:

http://www1.jp.dk/dok/kh190806/nyborg_report.pdf from jyllands-poste, Denmark's main newspaper.

[SkinWalker]

There is, actually, an interesting point of Nyborg's methodology that I have a question about and I've written him to clarify it. Once that's done, I'll be able to use the independent data he obtained and attempt to duplicate his results. If I can use the data in such a way -data sets that were not compiled by Nyborg, then it stands to reason that I can set aside any question of bias or the fallacious insistence that nothing he researches is valid now since he had some math errors in a project from 5-7 years ago.

 

That aside, its also interesting to note that Garfield has carefully avoided discussing Stankov and Massengill, two of the other studies I've shown which have data demonstrating the negative correlation between conservatism and cognitive ability.

 

I feel that I must also include a short disclaimer: the data I've cited are regarding general trends only and in no way imply that individuals in any population are necessarily representative of the data. Particularly not individuals who post at LF.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

@ True_Avery

 

I didn't just use wikipedia, I used the news link from the University where he worked. That is more relevant than a random link you are posting where I have no idea where it is from.

 

stand back, i know science

 

 

http://www1.jp.dk/dok/kh190806/nyborg_report.pdf -> http://www1.jp.dk/ -> http://jp.dk/ -> jyllands-posten -> largest selling newspaper in denmark