Talk:Religiosity and intelligence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Religiosity vs. religious affiliation[edit]

I see that Jobas has restored the coatrack material from the Pew study I removed earlier. This article is about religiosity (i.e., how religious a person is) and not religious affiliation (what religion one follows). Hence, the only distinction from the study that I see which is potentially relevant for this article is between the non-religious and the religious. Arguably, even inclusion of that content is OR because the study doesn't mention religiosity and doesn't control for socio-economic factors. I'll give others a chance to discuss before removing that content again. Eperoton (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone from this section and the last section (both are related). I think the issue is pretty simple to solve. I will re-word for a more neutral reading and hope that satisfies everyone. I usually try to just stick to the numbers since they speak for themselves. Here I go....Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


If anyone wants to contest my removal of self published opinion piece garbage, please see WP:RS.Petergstrom (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is written by an established researcher on the issue of intelligence, not an average joe. There are exceptions under the RS rule since the policy notes "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." So I will restore it. Please discuss before doing anything rash.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't even, he is an AI researcher, and it is a self published source. Although exceptions can be made, adding that source is just flat out stupid. Instead of asking yourself, "When can I use this self published opinion article", you should be asking "Where can I find a quality secondary source?. Firstly, it is an OPINION article, not actually scholarly, so there are MULTIPLE reasons to remove it.
  2. WP:NPOV, IT IS CALLED "The myth of the intelligent atheist. This is an opinion article, not a scholarly source. I don't want to have to take this to admin
  3. WP:SELFSOURCE exceptions states Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims. That is the only source for this type of criticism, if it were supporting a statement by a scholarly source, then fine, but it is making a lone extraordinary claim.Petergstrom (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The source meets WP:RS in accordance with the clause noted by User:Ramos1990. I think it's time for User:Petergstrom to drop the stick. User:Ramos1990 has already been generous with his WP:COMPROMISE version, here.--Jobas (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I have taken this to WP:RSN. I already stated why the source does not meet the WP:SELFSOURCE exceptions.Petergstrom (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I think any source that delves into this sort of area really needs to be peer reviewed or at least have a much higher standard than that blog. Coping with confounding factors in social sciences requires better than this. Dmcq (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I have added some context on the RS noticeboard to see how it goes as it does not really look like it would qualify as an unreliable source. It would fall under the "Exceptions" clause of the policy. That can be discussed there.
But to the reasons for removal mentioned here, they are not really convincing since Artificial Intelligence researchers of course are involved with the manufacturing of intelligence and thus are not separated from research on intelligence - both are inherently involved in intelligence research. Similar to how synthetic biology is not separated from biology - both are inherently involved in biological research.
  1. The source is not really questionable to anyone. Only Petergstrom seems to have brought that up without providing any reasons for that. An example of a questionable source would be Richard Dawkins on intelligence since he has no relevance to research on intelligence.
  2. The title "The myth of the intelligent atheist" or even the contents of the article is not a violation of WP:NPOV since it actually would fulfill the WP:NPOV policy. Here is what it says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Dr. Olson's piece is one of those "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
  3. With respect to WP:SELFSOURCE, Dr. Olson is not making any extraordinary claim. He is not saying atheists are dumb or anything like that. He is merely noting that wealth and income better explain the data from Lynn's paper and also he makes a simple observation from Kanazawa's paper that the differences in IQ are not distinguishable in reality since average intelligence has a wide range from 90-110. Its the same thing that is noted with men and women and their differences in IQ - not really distinguishable in real life since the numbers are not ridiculously far away, but pretty close by.
I will revert Petergstrom's edit once more because the original edit was not really well justified. Even what was posted on the Talk page here looked like editorial POV rather than good faith edit on making the article better. The reliability of the source is being discussed at the RS Noticebroad so removal of the source will depend on the outcome of that discussion. I will remove it if there is a consensus on it being unreliable.
Please discuss here before making further edits pertaining to the Olson source. I am trying to avoid more instability or edit warring. Patience is key. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted "For example, national wealth has a stronger correlation with intelligence than national religiosity" [1] from the lede. It had the Olsen blog article as its source. Regardless of the final outcome of this source discussion, this content is unsupportable for a lede. It is making a claim of absolute certainty without qualification that "national wealth has a stronger correlation with intelligence than national religiosity" - there is no "maybe" there, no "possibly", no "it has been argued", no (to use the actual wording in Olsen) "[I] wonder whether". No source data or research is cited by Olsen to back up his wondering whether opinion. He does cite and link an example of another individual's similar "wondering whither", but that one is not cited as the source for the lede's claim (I have not assessed that other "wonderer" to see if in it there is more substantial evidence than mere "wondering"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

As User:Ramos1990 clearly pointed out, Randy Olson is an authority on the subject and it is therefore acceptable to use the reference in the article as long as the sentence is properly attributed to him. We have consensus to use the source within the article. It should be noted that User:Petergstrom has a history of militant atheistic agenda-driven editing on Wikipedia, as demonstrated by his attempting to add information to our articles about Jesus and Moses, saying that they both had schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). On the article in question, User:Petergstrom has inappropriately censored content that he just didn't like, possibly because it called into question his own antireligious POV. Other editors reading this discussion should not take it at face value but realize that this is part of a deeper problem concerning User:Petergstrom and their editing behaviour.--Jobas (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, your biased behavior, with an admitted COI on your user page are more of the concern. Firstly, see the WP:RS talk on this, it has been more or less settled and on Feb 11, the content should be removed, as only you and Ramos see the source as viable, and with your POV, I don't think you are the best judge of viable material. Secondly, you accuse me of censorship, when it was pointed out that the section you wrote was given undue weight to specifics, and was possibly WP:OR on your part. Your addition of christian denominations when they rank above average, and refusal when they rank below are clear demonstrations of a POV. You should avoid editing religious articles in the future, as this POV bias and disclosed COI may continue to prove problematic.Petergstrom (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the patience with this. I have added some input on RS noticeboard. For the reason stated there, I will remove the Olson source. @EdJohnston:, I think we have the matter at hand resolved so I don't think the page needs to be protected anymore. Can you kindly free up the article?
User:Petergstrom, User:Jobas, and others here, I have contacted the admin to see if he can free up this page. Otherwise will have to wait until the protection expires in a few days for me to make the edit. I know the topic is controversial, but lets be more charitable and assume good faith in other editors to try to make the article better and avoid reverting. Compromising is good. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Jobas - whether they are an authority or not, there is no justification for one person's (Olson) opinion to be expressed in the lede as if that opinion was an undisputable and unquestionable fact. Even Olson doesn't express his opinion with that amount of certainty, he "wonder(s) whether" it might be. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The edit war reported at AN3 was (in part) about inclusion of the Randy Olson material. User:Ramos1990, can you explain what conclusion has now been reached about the Olson material? Should I assume that Petergstrom, Jobas and others all concede that a consensus has been reached? EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston. Yes, pretty much on the noticeborad, there has been enough agreement that the Olson source may not be a preferable source on this wiki article. See [2]. Only me and Jobas leaned towards keeping and I have slightly changed my mind on the matter. All other editors preferred removal so a consensus has been reached. Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This means that the article will no longer mention Randy Olson or cite his work? So you would go ahead an remove the material and just decide that User:Jobas is outvoted? EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston. Yes, the Olson source will be removed by me since I was the mediator on this. I was the one who wrote the most for keeping Olson also and Jobas agreed with me, but there should be no more issues from the Olson source since there is a consensus on it including me. Plus, there may be other sources that note different explanations too so that should accommodate everyone's concerns about imbalance in the article. Does that help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you think we can get User:Jobas to comment before we draw this conclusion? EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I was thinking the same thing. We can wait for a response and if nothing comes up, you can proceed in due time. Appreciate your help with this and for being patient.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion for or against inclusion in some form in the actual article - I do not know enough about the subject, though Olson's interpretive use of statistics to support his position seems dubious. I was only against inclusion of that absolutist wording in the lede, and I also do not think the Olson claim was lede-worthy in any form given that it was just a single individual's opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
EdJohnston, I have no opposition to remove the Randy Olson source. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have lifted the protection. All editors should try to avoid any recurrence of the edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


In other words, this "article" is garbage. To be worth the pixels it uses, it would have to be completely done over. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, I feel somewhat the same on this. It seems the article was made in bad taste form the start. The only thing I can think about doing to sort of add more realistic context is expanding on things that actually influence IQ like nutrition or education. At least then, there would be more context.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Is that supported by any literature? I mean the studies on this topic do cite limitations, but nothing like "predesigned" statistical analysis.Petergstrom (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ramos1990: That recent addition is WAY overdoing it. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. That material is already covered in the intelligence article. This is the religion and intelligence article. That stuff is NOT relavent.
Considering Jytdog's concerns here, it seems appropriate to add some context about things which are known to actually impact IQ directly. Causes instead of mere peripheral correlations. Perhaps some trimming is in order because I just copied some stuff from other intelligence wkipages, but it seems more adequate than just discussing mere limited correlations between two unrelated variables. The same would apply if doing correlations between race and IQ.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ramos1990: Two unrelated variables? That right there is WP:OR-you just added content with undue weight, as it is content not originating from any research in the area, rather your own opinion. The variables are very related, according to researchers in the area. The authors of the Zuckerman study cite how they are related, it is in the lead!

A meta-analysis suggested a negative correlation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and religiosity for western societies, related to nonconformity, more cognitive and less intuitive thinking styles, and less of a need for religion since other means that serve the same functions as religion are available.[1]

Third, Intelligent people may have less need for religious beliefs and practices, as some of the functions of religiosity can be given by intelligence instead. Such functions include the presentation of a sense that the world is orderly and predictable, a sense of personal control and self-regulation and a sense of enhancing self esteem and belongingness.[1]

More intelligent people use less intuitive thinking styles. People aren't religious because they logically believe that religion has value(according to the Zuckerman study), it is because of a more intuitive less analytic thinking style. Various studies have demonstrated this. Furthermore religion is used as a coping mechanism, as cited by many studies. Coping mechanisms are relevant in less intelligent people, or those in harsher conditions. The variable are very related, and the very fact that you say they aren't is a POV, and WP:OR as no WP:SCIDRS source demonstrates that. I am reverting to the most recent edit before your additions. Until you can get a source that supports your WP:OR, and makes it wiki material, and until you give it due weight, we should keep it stable at the previous version.Petergstrom (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No that edit is not WP:OR. I have reverted it. My edit was simply a move of material related to investigations on IQ from other wikipages like Intelligence quotient which is an integral part of the scope of the article. You have to keep in mind that this page is about intelligence quotient in part and as such it has to provide background on things that are known directly to actually influence IQ like environment and heredity. I did mention trimming, but it is a start. Merely transferring relevant background information from a closely related article to another related article is not WP:OR. How does the transfer remove anything from what the articles on religiosity like Zuckerman's study say? Those studies have their own section and were not removed. Perhaps rearranging can be done?
In one sense, it is an attempt similar to how other controversial pages like Race and intelligence have as a format. Take note that controversial articles like this one require some comprehensive background due to the volatile nature of the topic.
Also, take note that the information from the intelligence quotient article which was transferred does not really take away from the article, it actually adds to it by providing readers information about factors that are related in affecting IQ. These may overlap with religiosity too in various ways.
Jytdog and I have already expressed some concern over the limited content of the article (Jytdog has expressed concern over coatrack) and this is one way to expand it for the readers who are unfamiliar with IQ.
I also think that a whole section on religiosity is in order here too as a part of the intro background to expand a little on ways people have looked at religiosity. For instance, there is research on the history of religion which notes that "religion" is a modern category, not a historical one and there are lots of studies in sociology and anthropology which also contribute to diverse views of seeing religiosity with the 3 B's belief, belonging and behavior. Recent studies on secularity show surprising convergences with religion too. This may be worth putting in to give more context. Does that help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I am still very skeptical about these additions. They assume that it is religiosity that affects IQ, and they assume that this article is about religiosity on IQ. This article, and the sources on this topic, represents the effect that IQ has on religiosity, not the other way around. As the studies cited in this article already suggest, it appears that IQ that affects religiosity, not the other way around(thinking styles for example). The additions seem irrelevant in this light. Take for example Effects of alcohol on memory-the article does not talk about what affects alcohol intake, rather what alcohol does to memory. This is the type of relationship explored in the literature, so this is the type of relationship we can explore in this article. Any other additions are WP:OR. Petergstrom (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Glad to see some temporary compromising. The additions were about heredity and environment (things that actually are known to impact IQ scores) from the IQ page. In your view, how do these "assume that it is religiosity that affects IQ, and they assume that this article is about religiosity on IQ"? As far as I can see none of the content added makes any assumptions on religiosity, they merely discuss universal context or factors that influence IQ scores. Some background on universal factors that influence religiosity may be needed too. Both of these sections would provide context and background in the debates on religiosity and intelligence and vice versa. Readers can make their own conclusions on the matter. Like the race and intelligence page some background was provided because that article is also controversial.
Let me give one example of research showing that religiosity is not linear or consistent as Zuckerman's study assumes. Global data on the nonreligious from Pew Research center notes "The religiously unaffiliated number 1.1 billion, accounting for about one-in-six (16%) people worldwide. The religiously unaffiliated include atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion in surveys. However, many of the religiously unaffiliated have some religious beliefs. For example, belief in God or a higher power is shared by 7% of Chinese unaffiliated adults, 30% of French unaffiliated adults and 68% of unaffiliated U.S. adults. Some of the unaffiliated also engage in certain kinds of religious practices. For example, 7% of unaffiliated adults in France and 27% of those in the United States say they attend religious services at least once a year. And in China, 44% of unaffiliated adults say they have worshiped at a graveside or tomb in the past year." [3]
So what are we to make of this? Belief in god is very high among those without a religion (low religiosity or no religiosity) in some areas. So, is belief in a god a good indicator of religiosity or lack of religiosity? Other religions which have no gods of course exist too. Interestingly, Pew notes that "The religiously unaffiliated are heavily concentrated in Asia and the Pacific, where more than three-quarters (76%) of the world’s unaffiliated population resides. The remainder is in Europe (12%), North America (5%), Latin America and the Caribbean (4%), sub-Saharan Africa (2%) and the Middle East and North Africa (less than 1%)." Most of the nonreligious are Asians (who have no traditions of atheism or secularism or rejection of god belief since they do not have histories of theism) and only a small minority are actually Westerners.
Stuff like this is what complicates the issues and why background matters for articles as controversial as this. I won't get into stuff on Jews and intelligence but there are some things on that topic which show complexity too. Does this help?
One small note about WP:OR since you have mentioned it a few times. WP:OR is not about adding content to an article in and of itself. Editors add stuff all the time that is relevant to the scope of an article and that is how articles grow. WP:OR it is about writing claims without citing sources. So uncited claims are the issue there. So if a person writes something like "drugs are good for passing the time" and it has no source then that is considered violation of WP:OR. But if it has a source then it is not original research.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Huitzilopochtli's comment above, esp with his assertion that WP:OR is not about adding content to an article in and of itself. Huitzilopochtli mentioned the source from the Pew Research Centre showing that religiosity is not linear or consistent as Zuckerman's study assumes; the section is about factors that influence IQ and content do not make any assumptions on religiosity, but merely discuss the universal context or factors that influence IQ scores. --Jobas (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
What you guys essentially aren't getting, is that no source discusses these factors with the weight you do. We link the intelligence page, where the factors affecting intelligence are discussed. Putting excessive weight on something that the actual research on this area puts very little weight on, is some combination of WP:OR or WP:UNDERWEIGHT. The studies on this take into account these factors, they adjust for them. The point is, these studies point to higher intelligence--->analytical thinking styles---->less religiosity. They don't mention nutrition, because they factor that in.Petergstrom (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
These intros occupy an appropriate amount of space. They certainly are not overbearing and certainly provide basic context on the issue about measuring religiosity. By you eliminating the intro to religiosity section, you eliminated relevant material that discusses variables involved in measuring religiosity and how they interact, including real data on how diverse they are in real life. In doing so you eliminated DUE weight material.
This page is about 2 things: religion and intelligence. This page is not about only intelligence. In the same way that intelligence has an intro on issues and variables relating to intelligence, so should religiosity. It only follows naturally since two different topics are united in this article and BOTH are diverse and complex. To ignore the complexity is incorrect since readers need to have wider context due to the controversial nature of the article. I have restored the material and will add some wiki links to main articles.
The article is NOT limited to the limits of Zuckerman's study (which is the only one you seem to notice). In other words, the article is not based on Zuckerman's study or its shortcomings because there are other sources on the issues that have mentioned alternative matters relating to both IQ and religion (e.g. wealth, economics, poverty, demographics). Keep in mind that Zuckerman's study did not take into account cultural factors - which are of course extremely important to religious identification and beleifs + the correlation also was pretty weak overall -.24 average + the studies reviewed were mostly American so was very limited + the assumption that intelligence affects religiosity was not derived from the data but by inferences on stability of IQ and instability of personal beliefs and identification - which is expected since all other realms of life are not stable either + it did not consider economic explanations + did not investigate the diversity of beliefs among the nonreligious, etc). It was certainly was a very limited, crude, and narrow study. The weak correlation does not raise much confidence in it as authoritative either.
You may think that "higher intelligence--->analytical thinking styles---->less religiosity", but the fact that most of the nonreligious in the US have variable religious beliefs and practices such as 68% believe in God, they have significant levels of prayer, high identification as religious or spiritual certainly complicate the reality - it not a linear relationship. Other studies are available that state that analytical thinking studies do not imply that that atheists are more conscious or reflective of their own beliefs, or that atheism is the outcome of a conscious refutation of previously held religious beliefs since most identify as atheists in their youth, when they are emotionally volatile and unstable. Asians, who make up the majority of the nonreligious globally have all sorts of religious beliefs and practices too as previously noted.
All of this stuff is complex. The article is broad in scope and relevant material on 1) intelligence or 2) religiosity or 3) both intelligence and religiosity that help expand the complex issues involved (variables, demographics, etc) are acceptable. Just like the race and intelligence page has a section on race and a section on IQ and a bunch of other things. Many variables are involved in race and intelligence too.
As me an Jobas have already noted, WP:OR does NOT refer to an article. It deals only with unsourced claims. Here is what WP:OR policy says: " The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." See how it it linked to sources and content from the sources? It does not deal with an article's structure or content. 1) If a clam is made on Wikipedia and no source can be found for it, it is OR. 2) If a clam is made on Wikipedia the source says something else, it is OR.
Since you are being investigated right now on the admin noticeboard [4], for aggressive edits on religion pages including this article (nearly all of the editors who have reviewed you are supporting a ban on you), you should really not make any edits on any religion pages until your case is settled. It is better for you since many editors are seeing how you edited this page and it would be good for you not create any more attention.
If you feel a need to edit the page, you need to first talk it out here in the talk page in the meantime. I am willing to compromise with you, but you have to show good reasoning and willingness to compromise too. Hope this helps. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I may have been wrong about the WP:OR claim, I thought it referred also to users compiling their own conclusion from research(the type of thing a meta analysis or review would do). The point is, although this is complex, the point of us editors is to sum up research that directly related to the topic. We cannot create a page for "intelligence and phone use" if no research on it exists. We cannot take research on phones, and research on intelligence and speculate. Thats is to how it works. We are supposed
  1. Find the research on the subject
  2. Summarize the research on the subject in a clear and concise manner, lacking POV.
We are not supposed to add our own criticism, of the current research. If the criticism does not come from actual research in the area, we cannot add it. We cannot add our own opinionated context if the research does not give that much weight to opinionated context. The research does not give as much weight as you do to your seem to think that adding this stuff is directly relevant, but it is not. It is your own research, so I labeled it WP:OR.Petergstrom (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Glad you now understand what WP:OR refers to. It would be wise for you to read the policies and understand the context before citing them at other editors or their edits since it causes many false alarms and usaally shows aggressive or malicious intent rather than good faith in other editors intentions. As an encyclopedia, articles are supposed to have various relevant viewpoints that are related to the topic at hand and should also provide context for the readers of any article. Almost any addition to any article can be offensive or disagreeable and some editors often confuse - what a source says - from - what an editor believes - by accusing them of POV. The reality is that ALL editors have POV. Like the WP:NPOV tutorial says "Everybody has a point of view. Though 99% of the world may see something exactly the way you do, your view is still just one of many possible views that might be reasonably held." Our job is to present various viewpoints and background of ALL the issues involved.
I am not sure how anything I have added is somehow criticizing any particular view. You acknowledged that both religiosity and intelligence are complex, so what would be the issue? Is adding environmental or hereditary factors that influence IQ a criticism? Is adding how diverse and counterintuitive religiosity is in reality, a criticism? If so, a criticism of what exactly? These only attempt flesh out the complexity of the variables involved in the debate. The readers can make their own decisions on whether or not religiosity influences IQ in a positive or negative way or if it plays no intrinsic role at all or if other factors are what affect IQ. We as editors do not decide.
By the way, just do you know. On the WP:NPOV policy, it states "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we have reached a consensus on roughly where this article should be. Although Petergstrom (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Zuckerman, Miron; Silberman, Jordan; Hall, Judith A. (2013). "The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 17: 325–354. doi:10.1177/1088868313497266. 


This section does not appear to discuss religiosity at all; this appears to be a general discussion on what influences IQ. Does it belong in the article? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Like the section title says, it is on factors that are known to directly influence IQ such as heredity and environment. It is background info on what is known about what influences IQ naturally. Considering that people's beliefs do not influence IQ (e.g. people do not increase or decrease in IQ because of what they believe), it makes sense that things which impact IQ like malnutrition, lack of schooling, etc would be noted in the article. Especially since the article is about a controversial topic. Does this help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Religiosity and intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)