Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:26:29 EST
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Faulty IQ reasoning (Was: Re: iq<->religion: connection?)

In article <2935343385.2.p00168@psilink.com>, "James F. Tims"
<p00168@psilink.com> responded to the following post I made:
>
[Johnson:]
>>>>I'd like to suggest that both the "sincere observer" and mathew are
>>>>conducting pretty shoddy psychological research.  Casual observation,
>>>>however sincere, lacks the necessary rigor for determining the
>>>>correlation between intelligence and theistic beliefs.  If I remember
>>>>correctly, proper research indicates the correlation is about zero.
>>>>
>>>Oh, splendid, Mr. Johnson!  Bully for your memory.  Produce something.
>
>[Rude and uncalled-for tantrum on my part deleted...]
>
>>>Post us
>>>a non-shoddy study, Mr. Johnson, that supports your position (other than
>>>the four that I included with your preferred result).  Anything would be
>>>better than "proper research indicates the correlation is about zero,"
>>>including leaving this empty, infuriating, condescending, stultifying,
>>>(dare I say stupid?)

The following comes from a Ph.D. dissertation by Neil P. Young titled
"The Psychology of Explanation and the Measurement of Explanatory
Satisfaction" (Pennsylvania State University, 1975):

     "Intuitively, intelligence is the variable most likely responsible
for determining what sorts of explanations an individual will find
satisfactory.  It is natural to assume that the brighter the individual,
the more rigor and sophistication he will demand in accounting for a
phenomenon which he does not initially understand.  Nevertheless, what
little evidence there is suggests that this is not the case at all.
Except when dealing with rather extreme groups, differences in
intelligence seem to have little causal bearing on the sorts of
explanations to which an individual will customarily subscribe.
     "Consider for example the beliefs of persons beling to Mensa, a
society whose members purportedly have intelligence quotients which
place them in the upper two percent of the population.  According to
studies carried out by the society itself, 22 percent believe in the
occult, 33 percent believe in miracles, 23 percent subscribe to some
form of spiritualism, 14 percent place credence in reincarnation, 15
percent in astral projection, and astrology is subscribed to by 6
percent.  Also, there were 17 percent who indicated belief in palmistry
and phrenology (Serebriakoff, 1966, p. 146).
     "It might be argued that these findings are reflective of the
particular sort of personality which gravittes to a society such as
Mensa and have little to do with the level of intelligence which such
individuals may possess.  But this is precisely the point the present
author would stress.  That is, such an objection serves only to
emphasize that _there are certain kinds of people who will subscribe to
all manner of low-level explanations, largely irrespective of their
degree of intelligence_ (even if it is exceptionally high).  To imply
that 'explanatory satisfaction' in Mensa members is an idiosyncratic
consequence of personality and not I.Q. is merely to locate the problem
where I believe it has always belonged.
    "It must be added, however, that the relative orthogonality between
intelligence and explanatory preference seems clearly to extend beyond
the membership of Mensa.  For example there is a characteristic absence
of correlation between intelligence and proneness to superstitious
thinking.  Wagner (1928) reported a correlation of .12 between I.Q. and
superstitious beliefs in his sample of 186 college freshmen.  In a
similar study using college freshmen and sophormores, Powers (1931)
found a correlation of -.12.  And Belanger (1944) found a correlation of
-.11 between superstition and I.Q. with college students.
     "Correlations between intelligence and superstition (defined as
'misconception' or 'misbelief') also appear to be negligible.  Garret
and Fisher (1926), in a study of 255 high school seniors, reported a
correlation between superstition-proneness (i.e., the tendency to accept
popular misconceptions) and intelligence of .00 for boys and .01 for
girls.
     "Turning to the relationships between I.Q. and 'primitive
thinking,' only the study carried out by Milton (1960) address the
question, and his results accord with those involving superstition.  In
his sample of approximately 250 college students, Milton found a
correltion of .14 between intelligence (as measured by the Verbal
Reasoning portion of the _Differential Aptitute Test_) and 'magical
thinking' (assessed by _Stenger's Magical Thinking Scale_).  Clearly
there was little or no relationship between I.Q. and 'magical thinking'
so measured.  Milton obtained additional data in support of this
conclusion from 176 Air FOrce officers and airmen.  When American
Council of Education scores were used to measure the intelligence of
subjects in this group, a correlation of -.04 was found with 'magical
thinking.'  Milton (1960) concluded that, 'Here is even clearer evidence
than that obtained from the college students that there is a negligible
relationship between intelligence and magical thinking (p. 220).'
     "Certainly we do not wish to suggest that intelligence has no
bearing whatsoever in determining the sort of explanation toward which
an individual will be inclined.  For example, as would be expected,
there does appear to exist a lwoer limit on intelligence requisite for
the proper development of causal thinking.  There is a clear
preponderance of animistic and anthropormorphic modes of explanation
among mentally retarded children (Granich, 1940; Werner and Carrison,
1944) and adults (Russel, et al., 1940). . . .
     "It would seem reasonable to conclude from the existing research that ther
e is a modest correlation between intelligence and the use of various forms of
low-level explanations if such a relationship is established through the study
study of sizable groups and is representative of a broad range of levels
of intelligence.  However, when one is concerned to study the psychology
of explanation among members of any group relatively delimited with
respect to degree of intelligence (ie.e., college students), the causal
effects of intelligence are all but negligible.  Moreover, although
there seems to be a critical level of intelligence necessary for
physicalistic thought, there appears to be no upper limit on
intelligence which will preclude superstitious and other
non-physicalistic modes of thinking, from occupying an important place
in the mental make-up of many individuals."