Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious Inst

  1. #1
    workmx's Avatar
    workmx is offline Feminazi and semi-professional inconoclast
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    6,155

    Default Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious Inst

    Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious Instinct

    IFLS ARTICLE - http://www.iflscience.com/brain/stud...ous-instinct-/

    ORIGINAL PAPER - https://link.springer.com/article/10...806-017-0101-0

    A new study has proposed an explanation for the negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Researchers from the UK and the Netherlands suggest that religion might be an instinct and rejection of instinct, being able to "rise above it", is linked to higher intelligence.

    In their paper, published in Evolutionary Psychology Science, the researchers put forward the Intelligence-Mismatch Association model. They argued that religion is a so-called "evolved domain", what we would refer to as an instinct.

    “If religion is an evolved domain then it is an instinct, and intelligence – in rationally solving problems – can be understood as involving overcoming instinct and being intellectually curious, and thus open to non-instinctive possibilities,” co-author Edward Dutton, of the Ulster Institute for Social Research in the UK, said in a statement.

    Their ideas are based on the work of evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa’s Savanna-IQ Principles. Biologically, we haven’t changed much from our savanna-roaming ancestors, so the argument would suggest that our psychology is strongly influenced by how the first homo sapiens dealt with the world.

    A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed that there’s a significant negative association between how religious people are and their intelligence. Let’s state clearly that this is a trend. This means that while on average, atheists are more intelligent than religious people, this is not an indictment of the ability of any single individual. Trust us, you can have incredibly bright religious people as well as not very clever atheists.

    The model that Dutton developed with co-author Dimitri Van der Linden from Rotterdam University also looked at the generic link between instinct and intelligence. In particular, they focused on instinct and stress as people tend to be a lot more instinctive and a lot less rational during particularly taxing periods. Intelligence – rationality – helps to cope with acting instinctively during those times.

    “If religion is indeed an evolved domain – an instinct – then it will become heightened at times of stress when people are inclined to act instinctively, and there is clear evidence for this,” Dutton continued. “It also means that intelligence allows us to able to pause and reason through the situation and the possible consequences of our actions.”

    For them, this fact has crucial consequence in people’s problem-solving ability. And this skill is important in the changed environment we now live in. Our way of life has dramatically changed in the last 11,000 years and instinctive behavior might sometimes be counter-productive. Researchers usually refer to this as an evolutionary mismatch: what was advantageous for our hunter-gatherer ancestor might be bad for us.

    Human psychology is a complex field and I’m sure we haven’t heard the last word on this debate.
    Forgive me, I'm a sociologist and high horse slut!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious

    I will have to get my local church to pay for, and send me a copy!
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,617

    Default Re: Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious

    What is exactly instinct and how does that work? What exactly is intelligence and how does that work?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious

    Quote Azurisan21 said View Post
    What is exactly instinct and how does that work? What exactly is intelligence and how does that work?
    Instinct is a funny one. Most of it seems to be learned.
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,617

    Default Re: Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious

    Quote Darwinsbulldog said View Post
    Instinct is a funny one. Most of it seems to be learned.
    That doesn't tell me anything, sorry.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious

    Quote Azurisan21 said View Post
    That doesn't tell me anything, sorry.
    I know. You now have the sum total of my expertise on instinctual behaviour!

    What I do know is that a lot of behaviours previously assumed to be instinctual are not.

    How to explain it? First thing to note is that there are very few single genes that express specific behaviours. The foraging gene is one, which I will get to later. Most behaviour [and morphology] arises from the interactions of many genes. This is why the search for the [so-called] "gay gene" has been unsuccessful.

    Worse, even clones do not behave the same.

    So let us start off with something easier to understand, like morphology. Is there a "leg gene? NO!

    So how do we get to the point where all insects have six legs?

    The answer is in how development works. First there is the genome-the full set of genes in an organism. But most of the time, most genes are switched off.

    There are a variety of reasons why this is so. But basically, evolution "learns to" only switch genes on when needed. [Basic answer, if a gene "switches on" at an inappropriate time or place, mistakes result, which could cause death].

    My favourite example is dung beetles. The female is small and gracile. And hornless. But males can be both gracile and hornless or big and horned.

    So let us look at the problem from a pseudo-code or algorithm perspective. Females cannot produce horns [this is not strictly true, because rarely you can get horned female beetles]. But humour me.

    So we can conclude that either females do not have a "horned gene" [unlikely], but they cannot normally express it.

    The answer, as it turns out, is that the "Build a horn program" is only called into action IF the beetle is male and ALSO if the larva has sufficient nutrition available to build horns and a big body. [Basically, the larvae detects the amount of environmental food available via the insulin signalling pathway].

    So expression of male of female traits is partly dictated by the overall availability of food [dung] AND mummy beetle's decision on where to lay her eggs- in a big pile of shit or a small one. laying a female egg in a ball of shit makes no difference. You will get a female. But if she lays a male egg in a small ball of shit she will get a small, gracile, hornless male son. If she lays a male egg in a big ball of shit, she will get a large, horned son. [Reality check- often females will lay many eggs in the same dung ball, but the principle remains the same]. The amount of nutrition available to each egg.

    There is also differences in typical behaviours. Large horned males tend to win mates by combat. it would be foolish for small, hornless males to indulge in this strategy. So they tend to be sneaky fuckers. Thye can bury more silently than the horned male, and are more manoeuvrable in burrows, so they tend to get their females that way. By bypassing the sentinel horned male, they go and mate with a female.

    Now the question is, is the two types of male behaviour encoded, or in another words instinct? It may be, but there is a simpler much explanation. or rather, more than one.

    Males with an inappropriate type of behaviour will tend not to survive or breed. So behaviour is constrained or canalised by morphology. In other words, big horned fuckers would not be successful at sneaky fucking and small hornless males would suck at combat. So if this is available to selection, then genes for combat or sneaky-fucking behaviour could well arise. In other words, morphology and behaviour could be linked genetically. Indeed, this phenomena happens sometimes.

    A fruit fly has about 100,000 neurons in it's brain, the rest [250,000] is spread throughout the body]. Most beetle-like things weigh in at about 250,000 to a million neurons. The fruit fly has demonstrated reasoning ability, so although brain size itself is not a terrible reliable indicator, we can assume some reasoning ability in scarab beetles.

    If this is so, it is not hard to imagine a beetle matching its behaviour to it's morphological type. If it doesn't, it may not survive or breed well.

    So are these behaviours "instincts" or learned. I think they are learned. I could be wrong of course. A big male tends to be macho and a fighter, because he has the capability to be one. The small sneaky fucker behaves like that because his body makes that easier for him to behave that way.

    Oh, I forgot promised to tell you about the foraging gene. The For+ allele [version] tend to make flies go and explore, whereas the For- genotype tend to urge those flies to be "stay at homes". Both strategies have their advantages and pitfalls, as the availability of food can be highly variable. So foraging behaviour in the fruit fly would seem to be more like an instinct than learned. having said that, fruit flies have the ability [like most animals] of over-riding instincts on occasion. They can think, after all.
    Last edited by Darwinsbulldog; 26th May 2017 at 04:20 PM.
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  7. Like button Blue Lightning liked this post
  8. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,617

    Default Re: Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious

    I'm sorry DBD but you've VERY CLEARLY, ARTICULATELY and SUCCINCTLY lost me.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious

    Quote Azurisan21 said View Post
    I'm sorry DBD but you've VERY CLEARLY, ARTICULATELY and SUCCINCTLY lost me.
    I was trying to describe how to decide if something is an instinct, or the product or learning and intelligence.

    The subject is not an easy one. And as I said, I am not an expert.

    DNA can encode for a lot of traits, but I am not sure about instinct in a general sense.

    One thing I do know is that people [even some scientists] have tended to regard animals as "automata'-acting solely on instinct. More recent studies have uncovered cognition, intelligence, theory of mind and other mental attributes normally only assigned to human beings.

    Perhaps part of the problem, at least in "western" [European] type societies with a Christian tradition. This is because a common theme in Christian theology is the "GREAT CHAIN OF BEING" G.C.O.B], which basically classifies organisms [both real and imagined] into a hierarchy under god. Under such a system, a lowly bug is just dumb thing, a human has more grace, then the angels, and then the great glory of god. Women came in below horses in this classification of noble beasts.

    Of course, most civilised, educated people don't believe in it anymore. But they may be, on occasion, influenced by it if they haven't gone through and dismissed it in detail in their own minds.

    At school, for example, I was taught that humans are unique, and this is part of the GCOB mind-set. Famously, Charles Darwin blurred the distinct between non-human and humans, and so that was part of my education too.

    But where was I?

    Ah yes instinct. Do you have an instinct to fly or swim? Swimming would logically be a better candidate for an instinct because as we are just modified fish, some of our direct, but distant ancestors could swim. But NONE of our direct ancestors could fly. Therefore, we can use mere logic to say that a flying instinct in humans, is unlikely. [We may wish to fly occasionally though, but of course that is not the same thing! ]

    OK So far?

    So we can define instinct as some sort of racial or species memory, and the prime suspect here is our genes. Cultural memory is long too, but not anywhere long enough as the carrier of most instincts.

    The problem, as I tried to point out above, is that the vast majority of genes do not have specific effects. Morphology [shape of body etc from the minute [like cells] to the gross [like organs] are the product of many gene interactions. Behaviours are no different. It is very hard to link specific behaviours to specific genes.

    BUT those combinations of genes combine to produce bodies. Most animals have some sort of brain, which is capable of taking inputs like [sights, sounds, smells etc] and use those inputs to do things. In other words, behaviours. You are hungry? Go look for food? Danger? get out of there! Nice male or female, ask him her for a date, and so on.

    How much of all this is learned and how much instinct? Sometimes, it is a bit of both. Hunger seems like an instinct. But hunger for what? Obviously, if one does not have good strong canine teeth, then it seems unlikely you would normally be a carnivore! But if you have nice grinding teeth, perhaps plants would be your thing.

    So what we have in our bodies, what are bodies can do, tends to influence how we behave.

    Does that help?
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

  10. Like button Blue Lightning liked this post
  11. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,617

    Default Re: Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious

    Quote Darwinsbulldog said View Post
    Does that help?
    Allow me time to process it. Meanwhile, did you not receive my PM?

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    19,161

    Default Re: Study Suggests Atheists Are More Intelligent Because They Can Override Religious

    Quote Azurisan21 said View Post
    Allow me time to process it. Meanwhile, did you not receive my PM?
    I don't use PMs for general discussions Azu.
    Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •