I do not believe that every human being has the same capacity to learn and use all of the knowledge that is out there. That is a ridiculous concept. I was a fairly smart student all through school and was definitely motivated to learn all I could given my physical limitations. I did well in math all the way up to and including calculus but beyond that I was lost. I was also a good science student and loved astronomy but many of the advanced theories and concepts used today are beyond my grasp to fully understand. We are not all gifted to the same level across the board even when given the same environment to learn in. We are not all endowed with the same capacity for learning and I'm just glad mine was a little bit above average.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Agreed!

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Found an interesting article on the subject!

http://www.uky.edu/~stempel/pdf/Religion__Intelligence_3_15_04.pdf

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

<snip>

I read something somewhere years ago that people who get put in trances on stage and then act like chickens were of a lower IQ than those that couldn't be put under the influence. I wonder if here is a link there?

It must be true!! Max Collie tried to hypnotise me twice in the 1980s, and failed both times. ;)

---

Found an interesting article on the subject!

http://www.uky.edu/~stempel/pdf/Religion__Intelligence_3_15_04.pdf

Julie, the word "intelligence" has two very different meanings:

in·tel·li·gence
/inˈtelijəns/
Noun
1. The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
2. The collection of information of military or political value: "military intelligence".

This thread is about the first definition. That article is about the second.

---

Found an interesting article on the subject!

http://www.uky.edu/~stempel/pdf/Religion__Intelligence_3_15_04.pdf

That's a very good find, but not really related to this thread.

I haven't read all of it yet, in fact just skimmed what I have looked at. But think it is a document all politicians, diplomats and military leaders should read.

Oh, ok then. It was an interesting read though...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Oh, ok then. It was an interesting read though...

Yes, interesting, it probably should be considered as part of "The art of war" which it would seem most politicians have failed to read or understand. The book basically says get to know thy enemy.

When I Scored "high" enough on The "IQ" Test to qualify for Nuc lear POw er Pro gram I Said to Meself: Tha nk YO u GOD for allowing me The Chance to learn Atheist Science.

GOD is Gre at.

Bound FO "IT" IT. There There.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

When I Scored "high" enough on The "IQ" Test to qualify for Nuc lear POw er Pro gram I Said to Meself: Tha nk YO u GOD for allowing me The Chance to learn Atheist Science.

GOD is Gre at.

Bound FO "IT" IT. There There.

I think at that time, they were looking for people to remove the spent fuel rods by hand.

Monkey Wrench: How can you design an IQ test to show an IQ significantly higher than the IQ of the designer(s) of the test?

The same way you design an economic system that can scale well above and beyond that of the richest person in the world at the time of design? Try as I may, but I can't seem to Google-Fu a maximum score for the Stanford-Binet.

Second Monkey Wrench: There has been no standardization until recently in what an IQ point means.

Agreed. They have been debating over IQ points and intelligence for quite some time - which is why I specifically mentioned the Stanford-Binet test as it was the first to attempt to test intelligence.

Not really a monkey wrench at all here.

Third Monkey Wrench: There are dozens of different IQ tests and they measure some of more than a dozen different cognitive abilities. The same person can be a moron on one of these abilities and a genius on another.

Again, that's why I specifically mentioned the Stanford-Binet test. I'm well aware of the different types of IQ tests. And again, not really an applicable monkey wrench when I've specified the one I'm referring to.

Fourth Monkey Wrench: The average IQ has been going up for a long time.

This is another fact that I'm well aware of. Newer IQ tests have "normalized" for this fact too, which makes higher scores on those tests even more impressive when compared to those who took the Stanford-Binet in the past. And yet again, not really a monkey wrench to my claims.

As to scientists, John Dalton should be in that list.

My list was only a partial. Feel free to add whomever you like.

So what you are describing is photographic memory. There is a big difference between absorption and understanding and more still to application.

No, I'm not describing Eidetic memory. I acknowledge the difference between absorption and understanding. Absorption is within the individual, understanding is all about teaching method and the teacher's grasp of the subject matter.

Can anyone be taught how to fly an airplane to the precision necessary for an acerobatic flight demonstration team like the Blue Angels or Thunderbirds? Can you teach anyone to do brain surgery? You do have a limiting factor in that you have to do this before the person you are teaching dies of old age.

Yes, everyone has the same capacity to learn these things at some point in their lives.

Now for a infuriatingly simple thing, can you teach everyone to show up at work on time and ready to work? You have a motivational factor in them wanting to have food an shelter. You would think this an easy task. Try it some time.

I think your own jaded-ness is showing through. Again, I've already acknowledged that the individual's willingness to learn is a factor. You seem to be equating your own personal experiences to that of the larger population at hand. To borrow a phrase from Bobby, anecdotes are not the plural of data.

Speaking of anecdotes, when I was first hired on my job, I was frequently late (as were several others in my dept). My manager talked with all of us as a group and as individuals to start showing up on time. He didn't have to talk to me more than once, and he thanked me in a follow-up one-on-one. So yes, people can be "taught" to show up on time. It's all a matter of proper management. If management decides to use a hammer and intimidation, people don't really want to show up to work, let alone on time. But if management uses proper inspiration and motivational techniques, you can truly change the attitude of those you lead.

I do not believe that every human being has the same capacity to learn and use all of the knowledge that is out there. That is a ridiculous concept. I was a fairly smart student all through school and was definitely motivated to learn all I could given my physical limitations. I did well in math all the way up to and including calculus but beyond that I was lost. I was also a good science student and loved astronomy but many of the advanced theories and concepts used today are beyond my grasp to fully understand. We are not all gifted to the same level across the board even when given the same environment to learn in. We are not all endowed with the same capacity for learning and I'm just glad mine was a little bit above average.

No, we are not all gifted to the same level across the board. But you are very wrong in that we are not all endowed with the same capacity for learning. Given the right teacher and teaching method, anyone can truly be taught anything. I'm sorry you find this a "ridiculous" concept, but I suggest that this is a frustration point within yourself in that you refuse to accept what I'm saying because you feel that what I'm telling you is that you could have been a NASA engineer and you disagree with that. And yes, I am telling you that you could have been a NASA engineer if given the right teacher. The limitation wasn't within yourself but in the quality of teacher you had.

I think we are drifting away from the original article which states?

Thread drift is good - and a discussion on learning is directly related to IQ and intelligence. I find people's attitudes toward capacity to learn and teaching ability to be very curious and revealing.

I think at that time, they were looking for people to remove the spent fuel rods by hand.

Ones who "Dive" in The Pool make MEGA Bucks. And those "hands" when done, hold Wads of Cash.

Bound FO "IT" IT. There There.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Beginning to look like this thread should be over in politics...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I should hope not. I was happy to discuss the merits of intelligence without getting political.

I should hope not. I was happy to discuss the merits of intelligence without getting political.

+1

---

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

....are they? I've no idea....but I doubt it though - I doubt it very much.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Religious people are less intelligent than atheists

....are they? I've no idea....but I doubt it though - I doubt it very much.

I understand that's the thread topic, but I don't think that's what the study attempted to show. Rather, they found in a meta-analysis that there is a correlation between higher IQs and a lack of faith. Drawing from that, there's a direct correlation to Atheists having a higher IQ on average than those who are religious. What the study doesn't state is that there's no intelligent or high IQ religious people, they just seem to be in the minority of higher IQ people.

I think this misunderstanding is what lead Jim1348 to offer Newton and Einstein as examples of intelligent people who were believers. Even if they were alive today, and even if they were still believers, they'd be in the minority of higher IQ people.