jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on May 14, 2017 17:15:09 GMT
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; (I Cor. 1:27 )"
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 14, 2017 18:19:02 GMT
The mechanism that is prominent in the article, analytical thinking leading to dis- or nonbelief, has been seriously questioned in the specialist literature however. That may have implications for the quality of the meta-analysis.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on May 15, 2017 8:37:33 GMT
The mechanism that is prominent in the article, analytical thinking leading to dis- or nonbelief, has been seriously questioned in the specialist literature however. That may have implications for the quality of the meta-analysis. Can you expand on this comment a little please? Are you saying .... - analytical thinking doesn't equate to intelligence?
- there is a correlation but not a causation?
- something else?
I'd be interested in some references also please. (I have been following some of the papers on analytical vs intuitive thinking, but wonder if you have references I haven't seen.) Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 17, 2017 20:25:14 GMT
A few things. Finley, Tang, Schmeichel (2015) had findings that suggested that the effect depends on the CRT (cognitive reflection test) preceeding the scale of religiosity and that any effect disappears when the order is reversed. That doesn't suggest a lasting personality trait, but rather something more transient. Sanchez, Sundermeier, Gray, Calin-Jageman (2017) tried to replicate the original study by Gervais and Norenzayan with a larger sample size and couldn't reproduce the same results, finding no correlation instead. However, some other later studies do find correlations. Finally, an old article by Andrew Aghapour (a psychologist of religion) at Religion Dispatches gives useful criticisms of the experimental set-up. In general, I'm a little unsettled by how little attempts are made to correct for demographics (class, skin colour, ethnic or geographical origins, region, urban or rural background; gender is included more often) in this field of study. That while it's known that IQ tests often assume a white, Western, upper/middle-class outlook on the world. Specific to the study behind this news cascade, I think that: 1. it's odd to turn to generalised theories about analytical thinking turning people away from religious belief when you look at an average IQ difference of around 7 points tops (one of their findings) - I mean that's a rather massive difference, but not much compared to the total variation in IQ scores and it still allows for a large proportion analytically thinking religious people; 2. their explanation based on attachment theory doesn't make much sense for the general population, because the mechanism involved is religious compensation which is only considered valued for insecure attachment styles and that doesn't cover all people; 3. a lot of the studies surveyed in this meta-analysis had pretty pathetic sample sizes (fewer than 100 participants, what gives?) so "garbage in, garbage out" is a real danger. The mechanism that is prominent in the article, analytical thinking leading to dis- or nonbelief, has been seriously questioned in the specialist literature however. That may have implications for the quality of the meta-analysis. Can you expand on this comment a little please? Are you saying .... - analytical thinking doesn't equate to intelligence?
- there is a correlation but not a causation?
- something else?
I'd be interested in some references also please. (I have been following some of the papers on analytical vs intuitive thinking, but wonder if you have references I haven't seen.) Thanks. I was actually saying something else, point 3, there. It was basically in reference to studies that failed to replicate the effect, which raises the possibility the thing is just a dud. But I do have some things to add on the other points you bring up: - analytical thinking doesn't equate to intelligence?
Not what I meant, but yes this is trivially true. Analytic thinking is not IQ is not analytic intelligence is not intelligence. "Analytic thinking" is usually represented by a 3-point CRT in these kinds of papers. IQ is the outcome of a test that was originally designed to check for good future bureaucrats and members of the salariat. Both any CRT and IQ tests are very much socially constructed objects that pass a culturally affected verdict on what an analytically intelligent person should know, so it reflects white middle-class values in developed countries. Neither directly measures analytic intelligence. Analytic intelligence is now considered one aspect of a generalised intelligence. - there is a correlation but not a causation?
I strictly speaking don't know about either. Some studies show a correlation, some don't. I do take that causation hasn't been demonstrated, but whether there is any seems impossible to know right now. The generally preferred causal direction does make more sense than a mechanism in which religion stunts the growth of intelligence, but I don't see that a third factor influencing both has been ruled out, and that's assuming there is a consistent effect that's relatively permanent. Again, Finley, Tang, Schmeichel (2015) throws some doubt on any permanence because they have an effect that disappears when the test order is reversed.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on May 18, 2017 3:44:15 GMT
OK, that's helpful thanks. I have seen the Gervais and Norenzayan paper and it's recent critical evaluation, including Gervais agreeing the original was wrong. I've also seen a discussion about how doubtful many of these results of psychological tests are. But I'll check out your references. Thanks.
|
|