Are atheists "Scrooges" by ruining all the fun of religious faith?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Religious faith in part serves to blot out reality ad put on rose colored glasses.

Correct. Neurologically speaking it restores a sense of "control" to the PFC by avoiding stress. Too much stress and the PFC basically reverts back to emotional decision making.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Interesting article on how the PFC operates in anxious and non-anxious people.

Not sure who is who when we're talking believer and non-believer, could be evenly distributed. But judging how we know that stress disables the rational decision making process so that decision making becomes an emotional undertaking and not an evidence based one, it at least shows how our brains and specifically our prefontal cortices operate differently.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The typical evangelical seems simultaneously hell-bent on insisting that Christmas is THEIR holiday, while also insisting that everyone celebrate it THEIR way. Fucking pick one, will ya? Seems to me, they're angling to be personally butt-hurt one way or another, in order to satisfy their need to feel persecuted.

Tell all those Christians that Santa Claus never inspired killing.

Yeah, right? I mean, when you put it that way, it's almost like they're on equal footing.

 

[rousseau]

Phenotypic variation is a thing, but statistically we're not moving toward greater intelligence.

Yet, observably, we are.

So we must conclude that your analysis is flawed (or that something has changed radically, on a timescale FAR too short for evolution to be relevant at all).

Observation ALWAYS trumps theory.

We're accumulating knowledge, and in that way we're becoming collectively smarter, but cognitively we're not. The only statistical evidence I've seen mentioned that, genetically, we're becoming less intelligent as a whole. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but here's an example of data:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960300103X

 

[rousseau]

Phenotypic variation is a thing, but statistically we're not moving toward greater intelligence.

Yet, observably, we are.

So we must conclude that your analysis is flawed (or that something has changed radically, on a timescale FAR too short for evolution to be relevant at all).

Observation ALWAYS trumps theory.

We're accumulating knowledge, and in that way we're becoming collectively smarter, but cognitively we're not. The only statistical evidence I've seen mentioned that, genetically, we're becoming less intelligent as a whole. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but here's an example of data:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960300103X

And just to be clear, I'm not intending to bring eugenics into this, and I think the very idea of 'dysgenic' fertility is suspect. But I'm not seeing evidence that we're becoming genetically more capable, as a whole. We're becoming more capable of producing children.

 

[bilby]

We're becoming more capable of producing children.

No, we aren't.



https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

 

[rousseau]

We're becoming more capable of producing children.

No, we aren't.

View attachment 45073

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

This doesn't address my point at all. Yes fertility rates are declining, this is a social issue. The question is about who is reproducing, not about how many babies are being made.

 

[bilby]

We're becoming more capable of producing children.

No, we aren't.

View attachment 45073

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

This doesn't address my point at all. Yes fertility rates are declining, this is a social issue. The question is about who is reproducing, not about how many babies are being made.

It's not intended to address your point; It's a demonstration that your underlying assumptions are counterfactual.

You shouldn't expect to see "evidence that we're becoming genetically more capable, as a whole"; The timescale is all wrong. Humans haven't been around long enough for there to be anything to see.

You appear to make the common mistake of believing in 'a gene for X' (in this case, intelligence); Such genetic mapping directly to phenotype are very, very rare.

Gregor Mendel got very lucky; He chose a species and a set of traits for his fieldwork that are significant outliers in terms of having a direct link between a single gene and a clearly observable trait. The idea that such direct connections are the norm is widespread, but deeply wrong; They are taught because they are conprehensible, not because they are commonplace.

There is no 'gene for intelligence'. The idea that there should be, is just a consequence of the way evolutionary theory is dumbed down for a non-expert audience.

Evolutionary theory is at least as complex as Quantum theory. The difference is that very few people have a firm belief that their executive summary of what Quantum theory is about qualifies them as experts; While almost everybody seems to believe that they have a complete understanding of how genetic inheritance works.

Intelligence is no more at risk of being bred out of humanity than is homosexuality - which a naïve understanding would predict to go extinct almost immediately, but which is nevertheless observably persistent.

 

[rousseau]

We're becoming more capable of producing children.

No, we aren't.

View attachment 45073

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

This doesn't address my point at all. Yes fertility rates are declining, this is a social issue. The question is about who is reproducing, not about how many babies are being made.

It's not intended to address your point; It's a demonstration that your underlying assumptions are counterfactual.

You shouldn't expect to see "evidence that we're becoming genetically more capable, as a whole"; The timescale is all wrong. Humans haven't been around long enough for there to be anything to see.

You appear to make the common mistake of believing in 'a gene for X' (in this case, intelligence); Such genetic mapping directly to phenotype are very, very rare.

Gregor Mendel got very lucky; He chose a species and a set of traits for his fieldwork that are significant outliers in terms of having a direct link between a single gene and a clearly observable trait. The idea that such direct connections are the norm is widespread, but deeply wrong; They are taught because they are conprehensible, not because they are commonplace.

There is no 'gene for intelligence'. The idea that there should be, is just a consequence of the way evolutionary theory is dumbed down for a non-expert audience.

Evolutionary theory is at least as complex as Quantum theory. The difference is that very few people have a firm belief that their executive summary of what Quantum theory is about qualifies them as experts; While almost everybody seems to believe that they have a complete understanding of how genetic inheritance works.

Intelligence is no more at risk of being bred out of humanity than is homosexuality - which a naïve understanding would predict to go extinct almost immediately, but which is nevertheless observably persistent.

Correct, there is no single gene for intelligence, that'd be ridiculous. But intelligence is most certainly heritable through a complex interweaving of cognitive structure.

You're claiming that my underlying assumptions are incorrect via data that has nothing to do with my assumptions. So the only thing I can conclude is that you haven't understood what my argument is.

No, intelligence won't be bred out either, that would also be ridiculous. The overarching point is that the cognitive structure that leads to children isn't necessarily one that's good at understanding or rational thought. The evidence I posted above corroborates that.

 

[bilby]

But intelligence is most certainly heritable through a complex interweaving of cognitive structure.

Is it, though? At the whole population level, probably. But it's a massive stretch to assume a significant effect at sub-population scales.

 

[bilby]

The overarching point is that the cognitive structure that leads to children isn't necessarily one that's good at understanding or rational thought.

You have children, and I don't.

If you are right, you should believe me when I tell you that you are wrong.

 

[rousseau]

The overarching point is that the cognitive structure that leads to children isn't necessarily one that's good at understanding or rational thought.

You have children, and I don't.

If you are right, you should believe me when I tell you that you are wrong.

Unfortunately, the guys on the right of the curve rarely have a choice

 

[rousseau]

But intelligence is most certainly heritable through a complex interweaving of cognitive structure.

Is it, though? At the whole population level, probably. But it's a massive stretch to assume a significant effect at sub-population scales.

The way I see it is that our cognitive structure, along with a few other important variables, underlie how we compete for mates. There are a broad range of cognitive structures that entail competence and ability to find a mate, and there are a range of cognitive structures that don't. For the most part, anyone who's producing a child will be reasonably competent in some way.

But what this implies is that there is a kind of optimum, or ideal brain structure and physical appearance that leads to children. Generation after generation, this structure doesn't actually change much. The ideal mate has good social skills, and is reasonably intelligent.

Just like two bucks who compete with a set of antlers, you're never going to see antlers become too small, or too large, they have a kind of equilibrium. It's the same thing with the brain.

But the catch vis-a-vis intelligence, is that nothing about this process implies superior reasoning skills. It's actually conformity and ability to fit in that works most of the time. Those who ardently follow social norms tend to get married, have kids, and do the standard things that people do. Those who have exceptional intelligence are more likely to flout social norms and not have children.

For men on the level of genius, they're more likely to not want children, but they're surrounded by women who want to have children with them. For women on the level of genius, they're much more likely to just not have kids, or not find a man that they're attracted to.

 

[bilby]

But what this implies is that there is a kind of optimum, or ideal brain structure and physical appearance that leads to children. Generation after generation, this structure doesn't actually change much. The ideal mate has good social skills, and is reasonably intelligent.

Sure.

And almost everyone is very close to that optimum; And those who are further than average from it are likely to have their children (if they have any) with partners who are closer to it, just by dint of the rarity of wildly exceptional individuals.

Either the population tends towards homogenity (as that would suggest); Or it tends towards heterogenity. But in the latter case, divergence would be rapid, and likely already complete - the consequence would either be speciation, or extinction.

There's certainly no selection pressure from mate choice alone towards higher intelligence; I agree with you there. But mate choice is far less important than you credit it with being - the selection pressure towards greater intelligence comes from the environment, and acts at a whole population level. Intelligence isn't just a physiological phenomenon, it's also a sociological phenomenon. And in the era of long range communication (which started with Neolithic and possibly even Mesolithic traders), there's a "small world" effect that allows intelligence to flourish, even if the tiny number of geniuses in any given generation don't have any children at all.

Their genes are passed on by their fecund (but less intelligent) cousins, whose reproductive sucess stems from being part of a community that has access to the technologicsl fruits of genius*.

You don't need to be a genius to have a genius for a child, particularly if you had a cousin who was a genius. And your child can learn from his childless uncle or aunt, even if you aren't bright enough to teach him.

It's the population that evolves towards intelligence; And the selection pressure from the environment tends to favour intelligence, because the population with the best geniuses tends to outcompete its neighbours (or to interbreed with them until they start throwing up better geniuses too).

I am childless. But my genes won't die with me, because I have nephews, and nieces, and cousins, and second and third cousins, etc., etc., of bewildering varieties of relatedness.

If I were a genius (because of my genetic makeup), then that extended family would all likely benefit from my genius - and would likely outcompete their peers, and would likely throw up fresh geniuses in future generations.

There's no similar countervailing pressure selecting for the absence of genius. If stupid people are highly promiscuous, then they'll just increase their chances of mating with someone who carries some of the genius genes, and become part of the population that throws up occasional geniuses.

While if they're fecund in isolation, they'll just become inbred, leading to either extinction or speciation.







*Such as effective spell-checkers

 

[rousseau]

But what this implies is that there is a kind of optimum, or ideal brain structure and physical appearance that leads to children. Generation after generation, this structure doesn't actually change much. The ideal mate has good social skills, and is reasonably intelligent.

Sure.

And almost everyone is very close to that optimum; And those who are further than average from it are likely to have their children (if they have any) with partners who are closer to it, just by dint of the rarity of wildly exceptional individuals.

Either the population tends towards homogenity (as that would suggest); Or it tends towards heterogenity. But in the latter case, divergence would be rapid, and likely already complete - the consequence would either be speciation, or extinction.

There's certainly no selection pressure from mate choice alone towards higher intelligence; I agree with you there. But mate choice is far less important than you credit it with being - the selection pressure towards greater intelligence comes from the environment, and acts at a whole population level. Intelligence isn't just a physiological phenomenon, it's also a sociological phenomenon. And in the era of long range communication (which started with Neolithic and possibly even Mesolithic traders), there's a "small world" effect that allows intelligence to flourish, even if the tiny number of geniuses in any given generation don't have any children at all.

Their genes are passed on by their fecund (but less intelligent) cousins, whose reproductive sucess stems from being part of a community that has access to the technologicsl fruits of genius*.

You don't need to be a genius to have a genius for a child, particularly if you had a cousin who was a genius. And your child can learn from his childless uncle or aunt, even if you aren't bright enough to teach him.

It's the population that evolves towards intelligence; And the selection pressure from the environment tends to favour intelligence, because the population with the best geniuses tends to outcompete its neighbours (or to interbreed with them until they start throwing up better geniuses too).

I am childless. But my genes won't die with me, because I have nephews, and nieces, and cousins, and second and third cousins, etc., etc., of bewildering varieties of relatedness.

If I were a genius (because of my genetic makeup), then that extended family would all likely benefit from my genius - and would likely outcompete their peers, and would likely throw up fresh geniuses in future generations.

There's no similar countervailing pressure selecting for the absence of genius. If stupid people are highly promiscuous, then they'll just increase their chances of mating with someone who carries some of the genius genes, and become part of the population that throws up occasional geniuses.

While if they're fecund in isolation, they'll just become inbred, leading to either extinction or speciation.







*Such as effective spell-checkers

Are the fruits of genius that localized though? I agree that a family with better genes is going to be more successful, that's always been the case. But significant advances in technology tend to propagate through a population and benefit everyone.

In Canada, everyone has access to expert medical care, the same robust grocery stores, inventions, and so on. So as long as the community is supportive enough to get everyone to to the birth of their children, you're basically back at a statistical artifact of who's reproducing and who's not.

I do see your point, although my guess is that the phenomenon you mention has less statistical power than how an individual reacts to their culture.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Hmmm, THEY are attacking you? No one has commented on them being ‘kids who thrive on attention ‘?

Drawing on my experience again, when you post this scenario about a child who doesn’t play well with anyone, it’s not too difficult to realise it’s the one kid not wanted, and not every single other one.

HMM, laughing at you? Why bother?

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but it looks like it's supposed to hurt me in some way. So just to make you feel better, let me say that yes, you've succeeded in hurting me. You've ruined my day. I'll be reeling from the beating you just meted out to me.

Why exactly do so many people hurt others over the internet? Is it cathartic in some way?

However, to get back to your OP,

Yes. The topic. let's get back to that. I can't take much more of your lashing out at me.

what a load of bollocks!

That proves your position!

I don’t know of ANY athiest, agnostic or theist who ruins any festive occasion. I have yet to encounter anyone.

Keep looking. It does happen.

Oh, wait a minute! My dad was an itsy bitsy tiny minuscule upset for a nanosecond that I didn’t want a priest at Bilby‘s and my wedding. Does that count as a comment in the other direction?

You know that guy? He's married?

Anyway, yes, Christians can ruin other people's fun.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Phenotypic variation is a thing, but statistically we're not moving toward greater intelligence.

Yet, observably, we are.

So we must conclude that your analysis is flawed (or that something has changed radically, on a timescale FAR too short for evolution to be relevant at all).

Observation ALWAYS trumps theory.

We're accumulating knowledge, and in that way we're becoming collectively smarter, but cognitively we're not. The only statistical evidence I've seen mentioned that, genetically, we're becoming less intelligent as a whole. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but here's an example of data:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960300103X

It seems very weird that they are coming to massive conclusions about massive populations over a huge amount of time using data surveyed of 1500 people from 1990 to 1996. ... also, it seems at odds with the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect showed over larger time periods than sampled here that the populations purported to lose more IQ by this study actually _gained_ more IQ. No?

 

[rousseau]

Phenotypic variation is a thing, but statistically we're not moving toward greater intelligence.

Yet, observably, we are.

So we must conclude that your analysis is flawed (or that something has changed radically, on a timescale FAR too short for evolution to be relevant at all).

Observation ALWAYS trumps theory.

We're accumulating knowledge, and in that way we're becoming collectively smarter, but cognitively we're not. The only statistical evidence I've seen mentioned that, genetically, we're becoming less intelligent as a whole. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but here's an example of data:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960300103X

It seems very weird that they are coming to massive conclusions about massive populations over a huge amount of time using data surveyed of 1500 people from 1990 to 1996. ... also, it seems at odds with the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect showed over larger time periods than sampled here that the populations purported to lose more IQ by this study actually _gained_ more IQ. No?

Honestly, I'm not that committed to trying to convince anyone here, or analyzing studies, I don't have the time. But I've set the basic framework for my argument, so others can definitely look into it and report back with more detail. I'm happy to be proven wrong, I just haven't seen that argument yet.

 

[Rhea]

You know that guy? He's married?

Was this intended to hurt someone’s feelings, tho?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Phenotypic variation is a thing, but statistically we're not moving toward greater intelligence.

Yet, observably, we are.

So we must conclude that your analysis is flawed (or that something has changed radically, on a timescale FAR too short for evolution to be relevant at all).

Observation ALWAYS trumps theory.

We're accumulating knowledge, and in that way we're becoming collectively smarter, but cognitively we're not. The only statistical evidence I've seen mentioned that, genetically, we're becoming less intelligent as a whole. This isn't a hill I'm willing to die on, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, but here's an example of data:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960300103X

It seems very weird that they are coming to massive conclusions about massive populations over a huge amount of time using data surveyed of 1500 people from 1990 to 1996. ... also, it seems at odds with the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect showed over larger time periods than sampled here that the populations purported to lose more IQ by this study actually _gained_ more IQ. No?

Honestly, I'm not that committed to trying to convince anyone here, or analyzing studies, I don't have the time. But I've set the basic framework for my argument, so others can definitely look into it and report back with more detail. I'm happy to be proven wrong, I just haven't seen that argument yet.

Lots of frameworks and analyses are wrong. It probably takes a lot of time to understand theory, variables, and ideas involved. However, there is a very, very simple fact that takes almost no time at all to think about. Don't let the abstract notions obfuscate the reality. Data trumps theory that is built upon many assumptions and inferences. If it were true that whatever was being observed by the studies would result in incremental IQ loss of the human population, then all we have to do is look at IQ over large periods of time to see if they are decreasing. The Flynn Effect shows the opposite--that they were increasing over the same time periods of this analysis.

There are a lot of possible reasons on why the theories, ideas, and assumptions are wrong, but one doesn't need to figure out the why and be a perfect person, spending so much time on it. Data debunks it.

To the interested reader, you can read more about it on Wikipedia:

Preston and Campbell (1993) argued that it is a mathematical fallacy that such differences in fertility would result in a progressive change of IQ, and applies only when looking at closed subpopulations. In their mathematical model, with constant differences in fertility, since children's IQ can be more or less than that of their parents, a steady-state equilibrium is argued to be established between different subpopulations with different IQ. The mean IQ will not change in the absence of a change of the fertility differences. The steady-state IQ distribution will be lower for negative differential fertility than for positive, but these differences are small. For the extreme and unrealistic assumption of endogamous mating in IQ subgroups, a differential fertility change of 2.5/1.5 to 1.5/2.5 (high IQ/low IQ) causes a maximum shift of four IQ points. For random mating, the shift is less than one IQ point.[43] James S. Coleman, however, argues that Preston and Campbell's model depends on assumptions which are unlikely to be true.[44][45]

The general increase in IQ test scores, the Flynn effect, has been argued to be evidence against dysgenic arguments. Geneticist Steve Connor wrote that Lynn, writing in Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, "misunderstood modern ideas of genetics." "A flaw in his argument of genetic deterioration in intelligence was the widely accepted fact that intelligence as measured by IQ tests has actually increased over the past 50 years." If the genes causing IQ have been adversely affected, IQ scores should reasonably be expected to change in the same direction, yet the reverse has occurred.[46]

Some of the studies looking at relation between IQ and fertility cover the fertility of individuals who have attained a particular age, thereby ignoring positive correlation between IQ and survival. To make conclusions about effects on IQ of future populations, such effects would have to be taken into account.[citation needed]

Recent research has shown that education and socioeconomic status are better indicators of fertility and suggests that the relationship between intelligence and number of children may be spurious. When controlling for education and socioeconomic status, the relationship between intelligence and number of children, intelligence and number of siblings, and intelligence and ideal number of children reduces to statistical insignificance. Among women, a post-hoc analysis revealed that the lowest and highest intelligence scores did not differ significantly by number of children.[47]

Other research suggest that siblings born further apart achieve higher educational outcomes. Therefore, sibling density, not number of siblings, may explain the negative association between IQ and number of siblings.[47]