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.
--I could believe in a connection between vegetarianism and intelligence
That is because intelligence is measured in the eye of the beholder and the intelligence that the author was measuring was an intelligence that coincides with a cross section of people who tend to hold this belief in the social circle.
The article is so obviously subjective to the results the author wants based on the intelligence he is looking for.
For example I could argue that artistic expression is a sign of intelligence, i would be right and if i weighted my measures with that measure, I can guarantee you I could come back and correlate a high prevalence of vegetarianism to that measure.
intelligence is measured in the eye of the beholder and the intelligence that the author was measuring was an intelligence that coincides with a cross section of people who tend to hold this belief in the social circle
Exactly. It's like ESR's assertion that "a good hacker is someone who is just like me".
For example, if I set up a scientific study that compares the intelligence of vegetarians to meat-eaters I may find vegetarians scoring higher on intelligence than meat-eaters but that wouldn't necessarily prove the points that I speculated about above.
That's because meat is subsidized, so people in poverty would have a harder time being vegetarian, and I would think that poverty is correlated with education level which would be correlated with intelligence. (See http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html)
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.
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.
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.
I really doubt he's a psychopath. According to Wikipedia, psychopaths "they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse". In other words, they do whatever the heck they want, social norms be damned.
Many meat-eaters that I know are meat-eaters because they are very much attuned to social norms. They intuitively know that breaking from the common belief that animals are objects could threaten their socialization, which can add to their reluctance to entertain vegetarian ideas.
But I'm glad that you brought up the concept of psychopathy, because anyone who reads up on factory farming would realize that people who do that to animals are not mentally healthy. It's like the 99% of us who aren't psychopaths have delegated the messy work of factory farming to the 1% of us that are psychopaths.
"The social norm is that generally we should avoid inflicting needless suffering on animals, right?"
Theoretically, yes. In practice, no. Most people agree with this statement. However, you don't need to eat or wear animals to lead a happy, productive life (e.g., I know someone who has been vegan for over 30 years). So eating meat is optional--it's a choice people make. It's not necessary.
As far as the suffering goes, the suffering that occurs in factory farms is the worst imaginable. For example, it's routine for male chicks to be ground alive and for chickens to have their beaks cut off. And more than 99% of livestock is factory farmed.
So this is where theory does not meet practice. If people really believed that "we should avoid inflicting needless suffering on animals" then the majority of the population would be vegetarian.
"set stray cats on fire for entertainment"
To me this is morally equivalent to eating factory-farmed meat because you enjoy the taste (provided you are aware of the intense suffering of factory farms).
By the way, my other response doesn't really address what you're saying, so I'll reply again. When I read blintson's comment that "animal cruelty doesn't bother me at all" I took it to mean that he didn't see anything wrong with the cruelty we put animals through for the sake of hunting or eating. If that's the case, then blintson's values are the social norm. If you read it as not caring about animal cruelty in any form (such as abusing pets), then his values fall out of the social norm. I'm not sure which way blintson meant that in his comment.
Do you think the near impossibility of a vegetarian diet for infants and young children is a weakness of an argument toward vegetarianism? It would certainly be possible for adults to convert to purely vegetarian diets, but such a diet means almost certain, and very unpleasant, death for infants and small children who need large quantities of the building blocks of bone and meat in order to form their own bones and meat. I'm not an enemy of vegetarianism or anything like that, but your mention of a consistent worldview brought this to mind.
I do know that you have to be very careful about infants and veganism, but for adults, less so. About the consistency in worldview, that's something that I as a vegan have to struggle with. The truth is that I cannot completely eliminate animal usage from my lifestyle as long as I live in human society. It's either direct (I eat animal-based products or I buy leather) or indirect (I board a bus that has antifreeze, which is an animal-based product). So each vegetarian/vegan has to draw the line somewhere, and that's a personal choice. I choose to draw the line at avoiding eating animal products and avoiding buying animal products (leather and wool).
Edge cases like infants generate some interesting discussion, but I think the real action is in the typical case. For the typical American, it's hard to defend the eating of meat.
For the typical American, it's hard to defend the eating of meat.
Not to start a fight but, being one of those typical Americans (and a decently smart one), I don't have a problem defending the eating of meat. My reasoning is quite simple but I know many people won't agree with me. I don't see animals as being worthy of the same treatment as humans.
Not that I can condone putting animals through unnecessary suffering. But, I define unnecessary suffering is anything beyond what commonly happens to animals in nature. I think veal fattening pen are unethical. Holding animals in tightly enclosed spaces for their entire lives is unethical. Killing a cow with an ax isn't provided you're killing the cow for an ethical reason such as using the animal for food or soap. If you don't use the animal you kill it's no different than burning a forest without a purpose.
I really welcome these honest and sincere comments of yours and find them refreshing.
I actually agree with most of what you're saying here. I take things a little further than you, but not much. Let me explain:
"I don't see animals as being worthy of the same treatment as humans." -- I agree with this. In some ways animals are similar to humans, but in other ways they are different.
"I define unnecessary suffering is anything beyond what commonly happens to animals in nature." -- I personally don't quite agree with this, but concede that this can easily be defended philosophically.
"I think veal fattening pen are unethical. Holding animals in tightly enclosed spaces for their entire lives is unethical." -- Me too. Note that more than 99% of meat is from factory-farmed animals, so to eat meat is to vote with your dollars for this sort of abusive animal treatment. (Reference: http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming)
"Killing a cow with an ax isn't provided you're killing the cow for an ethical reason such as using the animal for food or soap." -- I'll concede this point, but I must point out that the majority of suffering and death that we put animals through is for unnecessary reasons. Case in point: I've been a vegan for five years and it has not interfered with my ability to live an enjoyable, productive life.
Note that the typical American eats too much meat (from a health standpoint) and as a result is dying earlier. So for most of the meat consumption in the U.S., the act of eating meat harms both the animal and the consumer of the meat. (Cutting meat completely from your diet will reduce your cancer and heart disease risk.)
Since from a health standpoint the ideal diet for a human is vegetarian, but not 100% vegan, I always try to be careful. But science shows that meat-eaters have much more reason to be cautious about their diets than vegans. See this science study: http://bit.ly/dsjAUy
I disagree. I think it takes intelligence to accept and realize the ambiguity, complexity and downright contradictions that are endemic to our existence.
I agree. Everything has edge cases, no matter what your position. The world doesn't neatly fit into our tidy little concepts of morality.
However, ignore the edge cases and there isn't so much ambiguity. Take the average American sitting down to a meal--why does he choose to eat beef? Typically it is out of habit or to please the palate. In the typical case, this act is harmful to the health of this person. This act also ends the life of a sentient being whose brain is developed enough to experience pain, emotions, and even develop social relationships. I don't see much ethical gray area here: a desire to please the palate would be trumped by another sentient being's desire to continue living and live free of pain and suffering.
Also, I doubt you would consistently hold to this position: "realize the ambiguity, complexity and downright contradictions that are endemic to our existence" if you were on the receiving end of the pain and suffering. If someone kidnapped your daughter and prostituted her out, for example, I doubt that you would find comfort in the fact that life is "ambiguous and complex".
I'm not an objectivist, I just think intelligence has nothing to do with the choosing. Ultimately one decides animals should exist as a delicious, nutritious source of protein, or those who would harm one's family should painfully cease to.
You can arrive at a completely different conclusion, but how is intelligence a factor in the choosing?
Good point. Intelligence may not be a primary factor in the choosing. One reason why some people are vegetarians and others not is exposure to the information about factory farming. So if you don't know what's going on with animals, you could be highly intelligent and not be a vegetarian. Another reason is you could be intelligent and narcissistic. You may know about animal suffering, but not care.
The reason I believe there could be a link (maybe a very small correlation; nothing big) is my own "anecdotal" observations. I've seen how a lack of intelligence can keep people from becoming a vegetarian. Often people don't address the issues in a well-reasoned, objective manner but react based on their emotions/desires ("but I just couldn't give up cheese!") or more often, simply avoiding the topic altogether.
I have not once, ever, come across a sound, cogent reason for eating meat (barring edge cases--just talking about the typical case). But I've come across many different sound arguments for avoiding eating meat. The overwhelming truth and well-thought out arguments of vegetarians impresses me.
For more context, I wasn't always vegetarian. I was raised with meat at every meal and I would complain if I didn't have meat. It was ultimately the cogency of the argument for vegetarianism that converted me. I would convert back if I came across an argument for eating meat.
So after years of hearing poor arguments from the meat-eating side and sound arguments from the vegetarian side, it makes it believable when someone suggests there might be a link between vegetarianism and intelligence.
(I'm actually quite impressed that this Hacker News discussion hasn't degenerated. In my experience online discussions about vegetarianism often degenerate into childish snark. Thanks for keeping it real.)
Unfortunately, the actual research paper is behind a paywall. I wonder what do intelligent people think about placing publicly funded research behind paywalls.
While I won't pretend to be one of those intelligent people I do have an opinion about publicly funded research. I think publicly funded research should be released into the public domain (or under license similar to the Creative Commons Attribution [1]) since the public funded it.
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.
> 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?
I don't agree. American liberalism is associated with allocating public funds to others. The article specifically stated private. So, for example, some Muslim societies are what we would call "ultraconservative" politically, but rank rather high on a liberalism scale by the definition in the article, due to private contributions to charities.
That is a very important distinction I think. Many people misunderstand libertarianism to be very uncaring and not compatible with empathetic and charitable individuals or actions, but this is certainly not the case. Wanting to help other people is quite distinct from wanting to use coercion and physical force to compel others to do so against their will (which is what compulsory taxation is and should always be thought of as).
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."
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.
Or, to put it another way, agnosticism, plus Empiricism, equals atheism. Rationalists, meanwhile, just call themselves agnostics and see the matter as sorted.
If nothing else, a reasonable person's certainty in any hypothesis must be bounded above by their (presumably finite) degree of confidence in their own sanity. Absolute certainty is all but nonsensical.
"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.
Apples and oranges. Having spent considerable time on both sides of that fence, it seems to me that the way skeptics look at the world is qualitatively, fundamentally different from the way believers do. At the risk of oversimplifying: believers subscribe to going notions (shamanism, catholicism, astrology, etc.), which become like parts of their lifestyle and identity; skeptics try to determine how likely various propositions are based on knowledge, logic, and evidence. Now, there are a few religious people who try to apply the searching scrutiny of the skeptic to their faith, and there are those who identify with the atheist camp, but sort of after the style that believers identify with things. So the division will get muddled if you go actively looking for exceptions to it. But the point is that most non-believers simply do not hold their non-beliefs in the same way, or for the same reasons, that believers hold their beliefs.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.