
Smart people more likely to be atheists, vegetarians - grandalf
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/02/smart-beliefs.html
======
techiferous
I could believe in a connection between vegetarianism and intelligence. I can
think of three traits that would lead to both:

 _Willingness to consider ideas that at first appear wrong._ Without this, our
knowledge would never contain the counterintuitive. If we limit ourselves to
what's intuitive, then we severely limit our intelligence. The connection to
vegetarianism is that our culture teaches us that animals are objects that we
can use as we wish, so vegetarianism at first appears wrong to us because of
our social upbringing.

 _A sense of duty toward the truth._ Gandhi was like this: he was very driven
toward the truth and very accepting of the outcome. As a result, he was always
performing many "experiments" and continually learning. A sense of duty toward
(and lack of fear of) the truth will expose you to many new experiences and
allow you to incorporate new information, which can increase your
intelligence. The link to vegetarianism is this: many meat-eaters I know are
not meat-eaters because they sat down one day and made an intelligent,
intentional decision to start (or continue) to eat meat, they either have not
yet been exposed to different ways of thinking about animals or they have been
exposed but they avoid the issue.

 _A desire for a consistent world view._ There is an inconsistency in our
culture in the way we treat some animals (pets) and other animals (factory-
farmed livestock). Michael Vick's dog cruelty is punished but the same animal
cruelty is condoned for the sake of food. There is a logical contradiction
here which takes some intelligence to notice. This, I think, is one of the
real reasons why there can be a link between intelligence and vegetarianism:
there are less philosophical contradictions in a vegetarian's position. If you
put a meat-eater and a vegetarian head-to-head in a philosophical debate, my
money would go on the vegetarian.

~~~
blintson
I am a meat-eater who's made an intelligent, intentional decision to eat meat.
I sometimes hunt deer and turkey, and I've caught and gutted fish. I've seen
slaughterhouses where cows and chickens are killed, and animal cruelty doesn't
bother me at all __.

 __Not that I'm not worried about antibiotic abuse and such breeding disease,
I mean that I don't care at all about the animals' welfare.

~~~
Locke1689
I'm not sure that's an intelligent or rational decision to eat meat. The
statement that you don't care about animal welfare or animal cruelty is simply
a statement with no rational foundation. For example, you would probably
disagree with human cruelty, so why agree with animal cruelty? There's a
rational argument to be made _why_ you don't care, but simply stating that you
don't care isn't really an argument at all.

~~~
techiferous
But there's one thing I admire about blintson's position: It was intentional.
He actually thought about it and made a decision. For too many people, meat-
eating is a mindless default.

You raise a good point, though. Unless blinston also doesn't care about human
welfare, it leaves the question unanswered as to why he would care about
humans and not animals.

------
hristov
Unfortunately, the actual research paper is behind a paywall. I wonder what do
intelligent people think about placing publicly funded research behind
paywalls.

~~~
tokenadult
You didn't miss anything by not going through the paywall. I did go through
the paywall, and found the same tired "study" that PZ has already decried:

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_your...](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_yourselves_on_the.php)

This seems to be the flavor du jour in self-congratulation, but there isn't
well established research here.

<http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html>

------
teuobk
Link to the paper from the author's web site:

[http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010OnlineFirst.p...](http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010OnlineFirst.pdf)

(Source: <http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/> )

------
ggchappell
An interesting article. It should be pointed out, however, that it contains an
easily misunderstood statement.

> Adult intelligence predicts adult espousal of liberalism, atheism, and
> sexual exclusivity for men (but not for women), ....

But this is not "liberalism" in either its usual American or European usage:

> Liberalism … [is] the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically
> unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of
> private resources for the welfare of such others.

~~~
teuobk
In the full paper, the author makes explicit his choice to use the
contemporary American sense of the word "liberal."

This, of course, differs from classical liberalism, which is similar to modern
libertarianism.

~~~
ggchappell
> In the full paper, the author makes explicit his choice to use the
> contemporary American sense of the word "liberal."

Really? That's interesting, since the definition given in the article
contradicts that. I guess the real question is how he _measured_ "liberalism".
E.g., did he ask people who they voted for, or how much they gave to charity,
or what?

------
rmorrison
Even smarter people are more likely to be Agnostic over Atheist. Here is
Bertrand Russell on the topic:

"I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say
'Atheist'. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have
been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely
philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an
Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which
one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the
right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that
I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a
God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric
gods."

~~~
andywood
Semantics. People who do not call themselves atheist generally tend to think
that you should only call yourself atheist if you mean to say you are certain
there is no god. People who do call themselves atheist generally only mean by
it that they do not consider the existence of gods to be a credible
hypothesis, anymore than the existence of leprechauns or centaurs. I think the
main difference is that agnostics seem to think it's really important to
stress that the jury is still out. For atheists, it is implied that the jury
is technically still out, in the same sense that the jury is still out on
invisible dragons; but it simply doesn't make any difference for any practical
purpose.

~~~
rmorrison
"For atheists, it is implied that the jury is technically still out"

I don't think this is true. I've heard a lot of atheists express their belief
in no god w/ the same confidence that a catholic would express a belief in
theirs. I think it's an important distinction to make.

~~~
kls
yes atheists take the "how" and use it to argue against the "why" when the
truth is we don't know the why.

There are strong arguments from "world renowned" individuals that items like
mathematics and the laws of physics have a strong sense of order to them and
could very well represent the language and rules of a designer.

An atheist looks at things like math or evolution at a mechanical level and
says:

"see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z
happened and it is human comprehensible"

they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the
truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an
agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at
the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions
and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced.

I think agnostics are far more creative thinkers, as they entertain grand
possibilities and have the most fascinating ideas on the concepts of why we
are here and how it could have happened.

To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open
mindedness on the subject.

Atheist are entitles to their views and I don't disparage them that, but they
reason on misleading facts and faith just as much as the religious do.

~~~
jamesbritt
"An atheist looks at things like math or evolution at a mechanical level and
says:

'see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z
happened and it is human comprehensible'

they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the
truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an
agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at
the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions
and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced.

To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open
mindedness on the subject."

On what research do you base these broad, sweeping generalizations of large
groups of people?

I'm guessing you're just pigeon-holing people based on personal biases from
purely anecdotal observations of a relatively small number of people
(considering the number of atheists and agnostics in the world).

Or you just invented definitions to suit your world view.

Either way, it sounds like reasoning on misleading facts and faith.

If you're going to disparage a seriously large number of people, please have
at least few facts you can back up.

~~~
kls
To reason that there is no god is not based on factual observation. To reason
that there is a god is not based on factual observation.

I don't need to pigeon-holing anyone anywhere the nuances I highlighted are
based on the real world definitions not ones I invented. The only conjecture
that I added was my personal view that lumping agnostics (by definition) in
with atheist is to deny an agnostic a more robust view on things, something
that neither the religious nor atheist tend to appreciate.

\--please have at least few facts you can back up

That's all I was talking about was true facts, it funny how emotions cripple
people logically and blind them from the true quest for knowledge.

------
lotharbot
The key fact presented is the correlation of IQ to atheism, liberalism (of the
classical variety), and sexual exclusivity for men but not women.

It's disappointing to see serious research follow up such a clear, factual
presentation with what amounts to pure speculation. Statements about how the
evolutionary origin of religion MAY be such-and-such and certain behaviors MAY
have created an advantage in such-and-such context, IMO, detract from an
otherwise interesting bit of data.

~~~
otakucode
The situation historically also varies very greatly from anything approaching
contemporary society. Belief in the supernatural is likely to have provided
support for the concept that the world is knowable, predictable, and has
underlying rules which can be discovered. With complete lack of a shared
foundation of knowledge, these ideas are likely not intuitive. Without a
relatively large body of knowledge, it would be very difficult to support such
ideas. When they sought answers to "why" with regards to their questions (as
the human brain has been shown to require) even when they had no language, the
belief that there is _something_ directing the world was inevitable.

This belief was limiting, however. Or, rather, it would probably be better to
say that the details of the implementation of these beliefs, provided serious
limitations to the expansion of rational explanations of things which had
traditionally been explained as consequences of the supernatural worlds
influence over the material one.

The Enlightenment and Descartes' view of a mind/body dualism (even though we
now know this is an incorrect idea) made it possible to relegate religion to
'spiritual' matters and place the material world, including answers to the
question 'why?', under the microscope of reason. The benefits of this wedge
driven between religious beliefs and rational conclusions were tremendous to
society and enabled tolerance and cooperation amongst individuals with varying
sets of beliefs.

Unfortunately, the Enlightenment did not spread to all parts of the world, and
many of its underpinning ideas seem to be dying out in the places where it did
catch on. Even those who benefited greatly from the ideals of the
Enlightenment fail to appreciate them because (paradoxically it might seem) it
enabled society to develop and expand so that it provides enormous protection
to everyone, whether they accept rational thought as the means to explain the
world or not. This removes the primary element that made the Enlightenment
possible - respect for knowledge and intellectual capabilities. Because it is
mostly safe to discard rational thought entirely in modern society and accept
a supernatural explanation for the state of the world, and because knowledge
of the 'bad old days' is not disseminated adequately, there is no impetus for
the average person to take up the arduous burden of intellectualism and
subject their beliefs to rationality.

Consider medical technology and techniques, for example. Even as short as 4
generations ago, children grew up with death, disfigurement, and disease all
around them. It was more common than not that upon starting a new school year,
they found that some of their classmates from the prior year had died, and
that some of the remaining children had acquired lifelong disabilities.
Because this experience is missing, and because we do not deliver the
knowledge of the conditions properly, the average person is rarely, if ever,
put in a position to contemplate disease and appreciate the stunning advances
that rational inspection of the subject has brought us. Belief that health is
consequent to their faith in their religion is not met with any increased
danger to the person (in most cases). Had someone accepted such a belief in
the past, and spurned doctors or those investigating medicine rationally in
favor of a faith healer, their life would be put in significant danger. Upon
considering the situation, it would be very likely for them to realize that
those partaking of the system based on rational thought were reaping
tremendous protection from disease. Even if they did not change their faith,
it would engender a belief that intellectualism had merit. It would put them
in a position to accept the ideas of the Enlightenment and perhaps give over
more of their beliefs about how the world works and how that is to be
determined, etc. As the idea that a rational approach to the world is
beneficial, and that those with rational knowledge can offer benefit to
society, civilization moves forward. These ideas have been waning, however,
and I fear that a violent confrontation between the parts of the world which
never experienced the Enlightenment and those that did will result in the
enlightened society turning back to belief in the supernatural. Such a state
is far more common in human history than not. Democratic government, value of
freedom, and many of the ideas we take for granted can not stand in a
theocratic society because their foundations are not subscribed to by the
populous. Democratic government is based, primarily, on the belief that human
beings are rational, that they can garner correct ideas about the world, and
that they deserve the respect of determining their own governance.

Their speculation, I believe, has just as much chance to be correct as mine in
this matter. Simply because an idea is objectively false does not mean that
its acceptance is necessarily a harm to society. Nor does it necessarily mean
that those kinds of ideas will have the same usefulness at different points in
the evolution of the shared level of knowledge and beliefs in a society.

Sorry for the long post, but this subject has been on my mind a great deal
lately and is a major source of concern for me.

------
j_baker
"less intelligent individuals have more children than more intelligent
individuals, even though they do not want to do so."

... I love this study!

