It seems to me that ,if you are one these people who takes IQ very seriously as a fixed, inherent quantity (like Eysenck, Jensen, Rushton, Murray, etc.) then this looks like an important finding. But, if you take IQ more pragmatically, as a mere test that allows one to predict (rather roughly) how people are likely to do in other activities (school, certain jobs, etc.) then this finding is pretty ho-hum. Even if you take IQ pretty seriously, it strikes me that there is a fairly deflationary interpretation that knocks most of the shine off of it. To wit, let's just accept for the sake of argument, that in order to use advanced mathematics (like physicists do) you must have a somewhat higher IQ. Since physicists MUST be capable of these mathematical skills, ALL of them have the higher IQ. If they didn't, they wouldn't succeed in the field. To be in, say, sociology, however, one need not have those advanced mathematical skills, and so SOME sociologists will be able to succeed in sociology (at least marginally) without having the extra IQ points that make one capable of these mathematical skills. That doesn't mean that ALL, or even MOST sociologists don't have the extra IQ points. It just means that SOME sociologists don't, whereas ALL of the physicists do, leading to a slightly higher mean IQ in physics than in sociology. So what?
Also, judging by the IHE article (which is bad, I know), these researchers didn't measure ANYONE's IQ. They just noted that social scientists have higher rates of "extreme" political views (which is pretty funny considering how "extreme" US politics is generally compared to the rest of the highly developed world) and higher rates of "religiosity" (based on self-report, which is a particularly poor method when dealing with a controversial topic where lots of "presentation of self" is in play). Then they "deduced" (in scare quotes be it isn't actually a deduction) that, since extreme political views and religiosity are "known" to be associated with lower IQs, social scientists who have more extreme political views and religiosity must also have lower IQs. This is, of course, only valid if one also assumes that social scientists are typical of (i.e., a random sample of) other people who have similar political and religious views. (Someone else has already mentioned Simpson's Paradox, which undermines this entire line of "reasoning.") By contrast, it may be (following a structure analogous to that in Kohlberg's hierarchy of moral reasoning) that there are different levels of reasoning that lead to the same point of view (e.g., Should Heinz steal the medicine? Yes, because he needs it. OR, Yes, because human life morally trumps business profit.). If so, it is the JUSTIFICATION FOR holding extreme political beliefs or being more religious that matters for judging intellectual sophistication, not the particular view that is held. Well, that went on longer than I had intended! Chris ....... Christopher D Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M6C 1G4 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo > On Feb 12, 2014, at 10:07 AM, John Kulig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hey does anybody have access to the full article? (I will subscribe if I > can't get a copy any other way) > > Is it merely the fact that physical scientists, on average, have higher IQs > (duh, more math!) and are also less religious (whatever that means) than > other scientists? If so there are a host of possible causal interpretations > and this is a ho-hum issue. Did they correlate IQ and religiosity _within_ > disciplines? Within disciplines there may be no correlation, a negative > correlation or even a positive correlation (i..e Simpson's paradox). I'd also > like to see their measure of religiosity .. Also, I'd like to see if they > also threw in spirituality either as an alternate measure of religiosity or > (ideally) a co-variate. I'd also wager there are some interesting non-linear > relationships lurking between these variables .. > > ========================== > John W. Kulig, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology > Coordinator, Psychology Honors > Plymouth State University > Plymouth NH 03264 > ========================== > > From: "Paul Brandon" <[email protected]> > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:51:40 AM > Subject: Re: [tips] Paper says physical scientists smarter and less religious > than social scientists | Inside Higher Ed > > This is news? > > On Feb 12, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Christopher Green wrote: > > > Let the games begin! > > > > http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/12/paper-says-physical-scientists-smarter-and-less-religious-social-scientists > > > > Chris > > Paul Brandon > Emeritus Professor of Psychology > Minnesota State University, Mankato > [email protected] > > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=34146 > or send a blank email to > leave-34146-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=34147 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to > leave-34147-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62b...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > > > > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=34160 or send a blank email to leave-34160-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
