Smart people more likely to be atheists, vegetarians
overcomingbias.com
overcomingbias.com
Willingness to consider ideas that at first appear wrong. Without this, our knowledge would never contain the counterintuitive. If we limit ourselves to what's intuitive, then we severely limit our intelligence. The connection to vegetarianism is that our culture teaches us that animals are objects that we can use as we wish, so vegetarianism at first appears wrong to us because of our social upbringing.
A sense of duty toward the truth. Gandhi was like this: he was very driven toward the truth and very accepting of the outcome. As a result, he was always performing many "experiments" and continually learning. A sense of duty toward (and lack of fear of) the truth will expose you to many new experiences and allow you to incorporate new information, which can increase your intelligence. The link to vegetarianism is this: many meat-eaters I know are not meat-eaters because they sat down one day and made an intelligent, intentional decision to start (or continue) to eat meat, they either have not yet been exposed to different ways of thinking about animals or they have been exposed but they avoid the issue.
A desire for a consistent world view. There is an inconsistency in our culture in the way we treat some animals (pets) and other animals (factory-farmed livestock). Michael Vick's dog cruelty is punished but the same animal cruelty is condoned for the sake of food. There is a logical contradiction here which takes some intelligence to notice. This, I think, is one of the real reasons why there can be a link between intelligence and vegetarianism: there are less philosophical contradictions in a vegetarian's position. If you put a meat-eater and a vegetarian head-to-head in a philosophical debate, my money would go on the vegetarian.
That is because intelligence is measured in the eye of the beholder and the intelligence that the author was measuring was an intelligence that coincides with a cross section of people who tend to hold this belief in the social circle.
The article is so obviously subjective to the results the author wants based on the intelligence he is looking for.
For example I could argue that artistic expression is a sign of intelligence, i would be right and if i weighted my measures with that measure, I can guarantee you I could come back and correlate a high prevalence of vegetarianism to that measure.
Exactly. It's like ESR's assertion that "a good hacker is someone who is just like me".
For example, if I set up a scientific study that compares the intelligence of vegetarians to meat-eaters I may find vegetarians scoring higher on intelligence than meat-eaters but that wouldn't necessarily prove the points that I speculated about above.
That's because meat is subsidized, so people in poverty would have a harder time being vegetarian, and I would think that poverty is correlated with education level which would be correlated with intelligence. (See http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm07autumn/health_pork.html)
Not that I'm not worried about antibiotic abuse and such breeding disease, I mean that I don't care at all about the animals' welfare.
You raise a good point, though. Unless blinston also doesn't care about human welfare, it leaves the question unanswered as to why he would care about humans and not animals.
Are you perhaps, a psychopath? Do you think we should get rid of the laws that prevent people from gratuitously torturing animals?
Many meat-eaters that I know are meat-eaters because they are very much attuned to social norms. They intuitively know that breaking from the common belief that animals are objects could threaten their socialization, which can add to their reluctance to entertain vegetarian ideas.
But I'm glad that you brought up the concept of psychopathy, because anyone who reads up on factory farming would realize that people who do that to animals are not mentally healthy. It's like the 99% of us who aren't psychopaths have delegated the messy work of factory farming to the 1% of us that are psychopaths.
If I set stray cats on fire for entertainment I can expect a visit from the police and/or an angry mob of my neighbors.
Theoretically, yes. In practice, no. Most people agree with this statement. However, you don't need to eat or wear animals to lead a happy, productive life (e.g., I know someone who has been vegan for over 30 years). So eating meat is optional--it's a choice people make. It's not necessary.
As far as the suffering goes, the suffering that occurs in factory farms is the worst imaginable. For example, it's routine for male chicks to be ground alive and for chickens to have their beaks cut off. And more than 99% of livestock is factory farmed.
So this is where theory does not meet practice. If people really believed that "we should avoid inflicting needless suffering on animals" then the majority of the population would be vegetarian.
"set stray cats on fire for entertainment"
To me this is morally equivalent to eating factory-farmed meat because you enjoy the taste (provided you are aware of the intense suffering of factory farms).
Edge cases like infants generate some interesting discussion, but I think the real action is in the typical case. For the typical American, it's hard to defend the eating of meat.
Not to start a fight but, being one of those typical Americans (and a decently smart one), I don't have a problem defending the eating of meat. My reasoning is quite simple but I know many people won't agree with me. I don't see animals as being worthy of the same treatment as humans.
Not that I can condone putting animals through unnecessary suffering. But, I define unnecessary suffering is anything beyond what commonly happens to animals in nature. I think veal fattening pen are unethical. Holding animals in tightly enclosed spaces for their entire lives is unethical. Killing a cow with an ax isn't provided you're killing the cow for an ethical reason such as using the animal for food or soap. If you don't use the animal you kill it's no different than burning a forest without a purpose.
I really welcome these honest and sincere comments of yours and find them refreshing.
I actually agree with most of what you're saying here. I take things a little further than you, but not much. Let me explain:
"I don't see animals as being worthy of the same treatment as humans." -- I agree with this. In some ways animals are similar to humans, but in other ways they are different.
"I define unnecessary suffering is anything beyond what commonly happens to animals in nature." -- I personally don't quite agree with this, but concede that this can easily be defended philosophically.
"I think veal fattening pen are unethical. Holding animals in tightly enclosed spaces for their entire lives is unethical." -- Me too. Note that more than 99% of meat is from factory-farmed animals, so to eat meat is to vote with your dollars for this sort of abusive animal treatment. (Reference: http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming)
"Killing a cow with an ax isn't provided you're killing the cow for an ethical reason such as using the animal for food or soap." -- I'll concede this point, but I must point out that the majority of suffering and death that we put animals through is for unnecessary reasons. Case in point: I've been a vegan for five years and it has not interfered with my ability to live an enjoyable, productive life.
Note that the typical American eats too much meat (from a health standpoint) and as a result is dying earlier. So for most of the meat consumption in the U.S., the act of eating meat harms both the animal and the consumer of the meat. (Cutting meat completely from your diet will reduce your cancer and heart disease risk.)
Nonsense.
1. Mother's milk is vegetarian, most nursing infants eat nothing else.
2. Jains have been practicing a very strict form of vegetarianism for thousands of years.
Since from a health standpoint the ideal diet for a human is vegetarian, but not 100% vegan, I always try to be careful. But science shows that meat-eaters have much more reason to be cautious about their diets than vegans. See this science study: http://bit.ly/dsjAUy
However, ignore the edge cases and there isn't so much ambiguity. Take the average American sitting down to a meal--why does he choose to eat beef? Typically it is out of habit or to please the palate. In the typical case, this act is harmful to the health of this person. This act also ends the life of a sentient being whose brain is developed enough to experience pain, emotions, and even develop social relationships. I don't see much ethical gray area here: a desire to please the palate would be trumped by another sentient being's desire to continue living and live free of pain and suffering.
Also, I doubt you would consistently hold to this position: "realize the ambiguity, complexity and downright contradictions that are endemic to our existence" if you were on the receiving end of the pain and suffering. If someone kidnapped your daughter and prostituted her out, for example, I doubt that you would find comfort in the fact that life is "ambiguous and complex".
You can arrive at a completely different conclusion, but how is intelligence a factor in the choosing?
The reason I believe there could be a link (maybe a very small correlation; nothing big) is my own "anecdotal" observations. I've seen how a lack of intelligence can keep people from becoming a vegetarian. Often people don't address the issues in a well-reasoned, objective manner but react based on their emotions/desires ("but I just couldn't give up cheese!") or more often, simply avoiding the topic altogether.
I have not once, ever, come across a sound, cogent reason for eating meat (barring edge cases--just talking about the typical case). But I've come across many different sound arguments for avoiding eating meat. The overwhelming truth and well-thought out arguments of vegetarians impresses me.
For more context, I wasn't always vegetarian. I was raised with meat at every meal and I would complain if I didn't have meat. It was ultimately the cogency of the argument for vegetarianism that converted me. I would convert back if I came across an argument for eating meat.
So after years of hearing poor arguments from the meat-eating side and sound arguments from the vegetarian side, it makes it believable when someone suggests there might be a link between vegetarianism and intelligence.
(I'm actually quite impressed that this Hacker News discussion hasn't degenerated. In my experience online discussions about vegetarianism often degenerate into childish snark. Thanks for keeping it real.)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/stop_patting_your...
This seems to be the flavor du jour in self-congratulation, but there isn't well established research here.
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010OnlineFirst.p...
(Source: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/ )
> Adult intelligence predicts adult espousal of liberalism, atheism, and sexual exclusivity for men (but not for women), ....
But this is not "liberalism" in either its usual American or European usage:
> Liberalism … [is] the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.
This, of course, differs from classical liberalism, which is similar to modern libertarianism.
Really? That's interesting, since the definition given in the article contradicts that. I guess the real question is how he measured "liberalism". E.g., did he ask people who they voted for, or how much they gave to charity, or what?
"I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'. It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."
I don't think this is true. I've heard a lot of atheists express their belief in no god w/ the same confidence that a catholic would express a belief in theirs. I think it's an important distinction to make.
There are strong arguments from "world renowned" individuals that items like mathematics and the laws of physics have a strong sense of order to them and could very well represent the language and rules of a designer.
An atheist looks at things like math or evolution at a mechanical level and says:
"see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z happened and it is human comprehensible"
they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced.
I think agnostics are far more creative thinkers, as they entertain grand possibilities and have the most fascinating ideas on the concepts of why we are here and how it could have happened.
To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open mindedness on the subject.
Atheist are entitles to their views and I don't disparage them that, but they reason on misleading facts and faith just as much as the religious do.
'see i can show you how we got here, it is not magic because x,y and z happened and it is human comprehensible'
they take this how and use it to argue against the why, which is flawed, the truth is we do not know and that is the very clear distinction between an agnostic and an atheist, an agnostic takes a far more philosophical look at the subject and determines that at this time there are still grand questions and that the subject of a creator can not be deduced.
To lump agnostics in with atheist is to discredit agnostics for their open mindedness on the subject."
On what research do you base these broad, sweeping generalizations of large groups of people?
I'm guessing you're just pigeon-holing people based on personal biases from purely anecdotal observations of a relatively small number of people (considering the number of atheists and agnostics in the world).
Or you just invented definitions to suit your world view.
Either way, it sounds like reasoning on misleading facts and faith.
If you're going to disparage a seriously large number of people, please have at least few facts you can back up.
I don't need to pigeon-holing anyone anywhere the nuances I highlighted are based on the real world definitions not ones I invented. The only conjecture that I added was my personal view that lumping agnostics (by definition) in with atheist is to deny an agnostic a more robust view on things, something that neither the religious nor atheist tend to appreciate.
--please have at least few facts you can back up
That's all I was talking about was true facts, it funny how emotions cripple people logically and blind them from the true quest for knowledge.
It's disappointing to see serious research follow up such a clear, factual presentation with what amounts to pure speculation. Statements about how the evolutionary origin of religion MAY be such-and-such and certain behaviors MAY have created an advantage in such-and-such context, IMO, detract from an otherwise interesting bit of data.
This belief was limiting, however. Or, rather, it would probably be better to say that the details of the implementation of these beliefs, provided serious limitations to the expansion of rational explanations of things which had traditionally been explained as consequences of the supernatural worlds influence over the material one.
The Enlightenment and Descartes' view of a mind/body dualism (even though we now know this is an incorrect idea) made it possible to relegate religion to 'spiritual' matters and place the material world, including answers to the question 'why?', under the microscope of reason. The benefits of this wedge driven between religious beliefs and rational conclusions were tremendous to society and enabled tolerance and cooperation amongst individuals with varying sets of beliefs.
Unfortunately, the Enlightenment did not spread to all parts of the world, and many of its underpinning ideas seem to be dying out in the places where it did catch on. Even those who benefited greatly from the ideals of the Enlightenment fail to appreciate them because (paradoxically it might seem) it enabled society to develop and expand so that it provides enormous protection to everyone, whether they accept rational thought as the means to explain the world or not. This removes the primary element that made the Enlightenment possible - respect for knowledge and intellectual capabilities. Because it is mostly safe to discard rational thought entirely in modern society and accept a supernatural explanation for the state of the world, and because knowledge of the 'bad old days' is not disseminated adequately, there is no impetus for the average person to take up the arduous burden of intellectualism and subject their beliefs to rationality.
Consider medical technology and techniques, for example. Even as short as 4 generations ago, children grew up with death, disfigurement, and disease all around them. It was more common than not that upon starting a new school year, they found that some of their classmates from the prior year had died, and that some of the remaining children had acquired lifelong disabilities. Because this experience is missing, and because we do not deliver the knowledge of the conditions properly, the average person is rarely, if ever, put in a position to contemplate disease and appreciate the stunning advances that rational inspection of the subject has brought us. Belief that health is consequent to their faith in their religion is not met with any increased danger to the person (in most cases). Had someone accepted such a belief in the past, and spurned doctors or those investigating medicine rationally in favor of a faith healer, their life would be put in significant danger. Upon considering the situation, it would be very likely for them to realize that those partaking of the system based on rational thought were reaping tremendous protection from disease. Even if they did not change their faith, it would engender a belief that intellectualism had merit. It would put them in a position to accept the ideas of the Enlightenment and perhaps give over more of their beliefs about how the world works and how that is to be determined, etc. As the idea that a rational approach to the world is beneficial, and that those with rational knowledge can offer benefit to society, civilization moves forward. These ideas have been waning, however, and I fear that a violent confrontation between the parts of the world which never experienced the Enlightenment and those that did will result in the enlightened society turning back to belief in the supernatural. Such a state is far more common in human history than not. Democratic government, value of freedom, and many of the ideas we take for granted can not stand in a theocratic society because their foundations are not subscribed to by the populous. Democratic government is based, primarily, on the belief that human beings are rational, that they can garner correct ideas about the world, and that they deserve the respect of determining their own governance.
Their speculation, I believe, has just as much chance to be correct as mine in this matter. Simply because an idea is objectively false does not mean that its acceptance is necessarily a harm to society. Nor does it necessarily mean that those kinds of ideas will have the same usefulness at different points in the evolution of the shared level of knowledge and beliefs in a society.
Sorry for the long post, but this subject has been on my mind a great deal lately and is a major source of concern for me.
... I love this study!