Religious people are 'less intelligent', says University of Rochester paper
This claim has been tossed about for quite a while so the comprehensive study below is very welcome. It should go a fair way towards settling the question. And what is shown is clear enough: Just over 5% of the variance in religious attachment is explainable by intelligence. In other words, IQ DOES influence religious attachment but only to a trivial degree. There are almost the same number of high IQ religious people as there are high IQ non-religious people. IQ is unimportant to an understanding of religion. Personality and cultural factors are presumably the main drivers
In fact, cultural factors could also be the drivers of the slight relationship between IQ and religion. High IQ people probably stay longer in the educational system and the educational system is broadly unsympathetic to religion. So high IQ people are exposed to more anti-religious messages and might in consequence be less inclined towards religious observance -- JR
RELIGIOUS people are less intelligent than non-believers, according to a review of 63 scientific studies, but not for the reasons you might think.
Miron Zuckerman led a team at the University of Rochester who found "a reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity" in 53 out of 63 studies.
But the group found that it wasn't because intelligent people "know better" but often because they are better placed to offer themselves the psychological benefits offered by religion.
"Intelligent people typically spend more time in school - a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits," the researchers write. "More intelligent people get higher level jobs (and better employment (and higher salary) may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs."
The paper, published in the academic journal Personality and Social Psychology Review, quoted a 1916 study which found that, "58 per cent of randomly selected scientists in the United States expressed disbelief in, or doubt regarding the existence of God; this proportion rose to nearly 70 per cent for the most eminent scientists."
"People possessing the functions that religion provides are likely to adopt atheism, people lacking these very functions (e.g., the poor, the helpless) are likely to adopt theism," the researchers wrote.
The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations
By Miron Zuckerman et al
A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity. The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.
More "diversity" in British nursing home care
An elderly man died three days after an agency nurse left him lying on the floor with a broken leg, a tribunal has heard.
Sarah Msika failed to spot the pensioner was injured when she visited his home near Norwich, Norfolk, it was claimed today at the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
Msika allegedly left the patient’s incontinent wife lying in her own faeces in the kitchen propped up against a table leg.
Healthcare assistants found the couple lying ‘in the same positions’ on the floor later that day and rushed them to hospital.
The elderly man died three days later while his wife passed away six months after the incident.
When Msika visited the couple on August 3, 2011, and did express concerns about the absence of food and the smell of urine in the house.
David Clark, for the NMC, said: ‘On that visit both Patient A and her husband, Patient B, were siting in chairs and behaving normally.
‘Msika visited the couple again on the following day, and was met with a very different scene. ‘She found both Patient A and Patient B on the floor in different rooms. Patient A was in the kitchen, sitting partly propped up either against a table leg.
‘Her husband Patient B was in the living room and he too was on the floor.
‘He said that he was alright and he would get up in his own time.
‘She (Msika) did not carry out an investigation, she didn’t check for injury, she didn’t ask him if he was injured in any way.’
It later emerged that the elderly man had fractured his leg, the hearing was told.
‘The registrant then went into the kitchen and dealt with Patient A,’ said Mr Clark.
‘She made some attempts to clean the patient and she went and got some clean clothes for her.
‘It is our case that those attempts were inadequate and what she did was effectively leave the 79-year-old woman, half-sitting, half-lying on the kitchen floor in her own faeces’, Mr Clark said.
Later that day, healthcare assistants visited the couple, finding them in the same positions on the floor, the tribunal heard.
‘Very sadly, the male patient - the husband - suffered a pulmonary embolism and died shortly after the event on August 6’, Mr Clark said.
Patient A died in January 2012, the panel heard.
A ‘relatively brief’ police investigation was mounted, but no criminal charges were brought against Msika, the hearing was told.
If she is found guilty of misconduct, she could be suspended or struck off. The hearing, at the Nursing and Midwifery council, continues
If she is found guilty of misconduct, she could be suspended or struck off. The hearing, at the Nursing and Midwifery council, continues
Msika, who is attending with her mother, admits leaving the couple on the floor, failing to call for assistance, failing to recognise Patient B had a broken leg and failing to escalate the situation.
She denies leaving Patient A sitting in her own faeces, failing to adequately documenting the incident and not communicating to her colleagues that the couple remained on the floor.
If she is found guilty of misconduct, she could be suspended or struck off.
Thieves and fraudsters must NEVER be jailed: That's the advice from British Leftist ex crime adviser
Serial thieves, pickpockets and fraudsters should never be jailed, a former Government sentencing adviser declared last night.
Professor Andrew Ashworth claimed even repeat offenders with dozens of convictions should be spared the ‘pain’ of a prison term.
He said locking up thieves and fraudsters and ‘condemning’ them to prison was an ‘abuse of State power’. Instead, he argued, they should be fined, given community service and forced to pay for the damage they have caused.
The controversial comments in a pamphlet for a penal reform group were condemned as ‘extreme’ and ‘callous’ towards victims by crime prevention campaigners.
Prof Ashworth, now an Oxford University law professor, said jail was ‘disproportionate’ for what he called ‘pure’ property offences, including theft, handling stolen goods, criminal damage and fraud.
Depriving someone of their liberty for an offence that ‘only’ targeted property was unfair, he claimed, arguing that jail should be reserved for violent and sexual crimes.
He described the theft of £250 worth of clothes from a store as ‘in the overall scale of things...not serious harm’.
Prof Ashworth was chairman of the Sentencing Advisory Panel for three years under Labour when there were repeated criticisms that policy was going soft.
His comments came in a pamphlet for the Howard League for Penal Reform, which calls for fewer criminals to be jailed and a rise in the age of criminal responsibility, currently ten in England.
‘We should be reserving our most severe form of punishment for our most serious types of offending,’ said Prof Ashworth.
‘Should someone be sent to prison and deprived of their liberty for an offence that involves no violence, no threats and no sexual assault?’ He said this was ‘an abuse of State power’.
The professor added: ‘Instead, the priority should be to deal with such offences in the community, giving precedence to compensation for the victim and, where the offence is sufficiently serious, imposing a community sentence.’
The result of such a policy would be more than 25,000 fewer criminals sent to jail every year, most for theft and handling offences.
Peter Cuthbertson, director of the Centre for Crime Prevention, said: ‘These extreme recommendations are callous towards victims and show a complete ignorance of the facts. ‘Only an ivory tower academic who started out determined to reduce prison numbers whatever the evidence could reach this conclusion.
‘Theft is not a “minor offence”. Victims can find their lives transformed by fear. Making a promise to thieves and fraudsters that they will never go to prison is ridiculous.
‘Already the courts bend over backwards to give criminals community sentences and fines which fail to protect the public. Prison protects the public.
‘More prison places and longer sentences would be better for victims and most likely to turn these thieves’ lives around.’
Last year, around 91,000 serious and repeat offenders, including thousands of thieves and other property criminals, escaped jail.
Frances Crook, chief executive of the League, said theft and fraud victims were losing out as too much priority was given to jailing criminals rather than returning stolen property and compensation.
She backed fines, compensation orders and community sentences over jail ‘which produce a much lower rate of reoffending at a fraction of the cost’.
Battle of the Sexes
Women make only 77 cents per each dollar made by males. Outrageous! Sex discrimination! So say advocates of government-enforced "equality."
But they are wrong. Women today are rarely victims of salary discrimination.
If they were, market competition would punish bosses who discriminate. A company that hired women who were "underpaid" by other companies would have a cost advantage, allowing them to lower prices, and they'd quickly take business away from the "sexist" competition. Since those female workers provide the same value for less, entrepreneurs who hired only women would get rich!
Warren Farrell, author of "Why Men Earn More," dug deeper into reasons why women are paid less and found that it's women who make discriminating choices. Women are more likely to choose a well-rounded life than their workaholic male peers.
"Many women say, what do I want? Do I want to make $200,000 a year, or do I want more personal time? Time with my children? More spiritual time?"
He found that even female business owners are more likely to favor flexibility and proximity to home. Men are more likely to chase higher earnings by working longer hours, traveling farther and taking dangerous assignments. They are paid accordingly, though they may not be happier.
In her recent book, "Lean In," the chief operating officer of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, urged women to put in the extra effort that enables workers to jockey for position in business.
She says: "At Facebook, we hosted a senior government official, and he had these two women traveling with him who were pretty senior in his department. And I said to them, sit at the table, come on, sit at the table. (But) they sat on the side of the room."
Sandberg's been criticized by feminists for this common-sense message. The critics claim she "blames the victim." But most women are anything but victims. Making a different choice, choosing a less career-driven life, may be why women have more friends and live longer.
Many women don't want "corporate success," though it's politically incorrect to admit it, says Sabrina Schaeffer, executive director of the Independent Women's Forum.
"I don't think that most women want what Sheryl Sandberg wants," Schaeffer told me. "In some recent studies, only 23 percent of women said that they would prefer to work full-time, let alone (have the) sort of CEO quality of life that Sheryl Sandberg is living."
Regardless of what many women prefer, America now is stuck with laws based on a feminist view that only discrimination accounts for differences between women and men -- and that government must use regulation to "correct" those differences: affirmative action, subsidies for female-owned businesses, Title IX rules that require equal money for women's college sports, etc.
Instead of trying to change sexist male institutions by force, Sandberg's book suggests that women change voluntarily.
"Sandberg picks up on some very sensitive gender differences," says Schaeffer. "She says, look, women don't negotiate their salaries. I was one of those women. My brother told me he negotiated every salary he had. The fact is, once you're aware of that, you can do things."
If they do, women might very well overtake men in business -- but they will have to give something up to do it.
Psychiatrist Dr. Daniel Amen, author of "The Power of the Female Brain," conducted the biggest brain-scan study ever done -- 46,000 scans -- and found that "female brains were dramatically more active. Women are really wired for leadership. ... If it wasn't for this thing called children that derails their careers ... they really make great CEOs."
Amen says women are "better with things like empathy, intuition, collaboration, self-control." Since leadership isn't all about bellowing and frightening people, those are useful corporate skills.
They are also useful skills for managing a household full of children and promoting family life. We should respect both choices.
Politicians and "equality" feminists should respect reality: Differing choices come with differing rewards -- and different salaries.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.