Ask a public-health/nutrition student

[Aractus]

Religious people tend to be smarter

So I read this on a site a while back and was wondering if there is any validity to it.

So, let's have a look shall we at this. The first major problem in answering this question is defining "smarter". Generally we probably mean intelligence, but there's no one global measure of intelligence, that is accurate across all populations. Every measure of intelligence has limitations. When populations gain intelligence in one area, they can lose intelligence in another area. Or the population might gain or lose intelligence in an area that isn't tested for in the population data for those people.

So you see the problem. What intelligence is not is that it's not something defined by a single narrowed criteria, as is set out by contemporary testing methods. Those tests are designed to subjectively measure what indicators the researchers themselves feel are indicative of intelligence, in the subjective order that the researchers feel is important. And this itself is largely shaped by cultural values, rather than objectivity.

There is no one agreed precise objective definition of intelligence. And we don't know how to comprehensibly measure it objectively, because we don't understand how many distinct facets of intelligence there are, or how to properly categorise them.

So now we have to look at some things are indicative of a person's intelligence.

Literacy skills, numeracy skills, other academic tasks, judgement, comprehension, memory, problem-solving abilities, dexterity, musical skills, ability to function in society.

Is David Helfgott brilliant or incredibly stupid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTQTqj6YJFk

He suffers from a debilitating mental illness (in the early 70's he was institutionalised for several years), and his hobbies include (see Wikipedia) "reading, watching television, listening to music (preferably all at the same time), cats, chess, philosophy, swimming and keeping fit". Professional pianists hate him because he "can't play properly", but that didn't stop him having a successful career and entertaining people (many of whom would probably be bored to death by the usual squares playing a piano on a stage) in sold-out concerts. And although he might not play classic music flawlessly like other pianists do, he can still memorise and play the most complicated music known to man.

Adaptability, survivability, avoiding harmful behaviours, risk management(/mitigation), financial planning/stability, identifying different species (plant/animal/fish/birds/etc), well-spokenness, understanding and relating to other people's point of view, understanding and anticipating animal behaviours, creativity, obedience, leadership, practical intelligence, memory, general knowledge, critical thinking skills, behaviour, ability to set and achieve goals, and even reproduction are also other indicators of intelligence.

What one culture values more than another will drive the cognitive functions in those areas. For example, Werner 1948 "Comparative psychology of mental development" (as cited here) said that he encountered an Eskimo that was able to draw him an accurate map of the shores of a territory that the Eskimo had only explored once in a kayak. The coastline was something like 10,000km long.

Surely this feat (or talent) clearly shows intelligence, but, the inability of somebody else to perform the same task may not necessarily be an indicator of a lack of intelligence.

It could very well be that intelligence is limited, and learning complicated skills and tasks can prevent the learning of other alternative skills and tasks.

So then: are religious people in general more intelligent than non-religious? I don't know. It's certainly plausible, and I don't think we have any idea of the more subtle determinants of intelligence. The social gradient has a proven affect on children's cognitive abilities (even within the same class at the same school), so I wouldn't rule any life factors out of having an influence on intelligence.