Talk:Religiosity and intelligence/Archive 5

Removal
If anyone wants to contest my removal of self published opinion piece garbage, please see WP:RS.Petergstrom (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is written by an established researcher on the issue of intelligence, not an average joe. There are exceptions under the RS rule since the policy notes "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." So I will restore it. Please discuss before doing anything rash.Huitzilopochtli (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't even, he is an AI researcher, and it is a self published source. Although exceptions can be made, adding that source is just flat out stupid.  Instead of asking yourself, "When can I use this self published opinion article", you should be asking "Where can I find a quality secondary source?.  Firstly, it is an OPINION article, not actually scholarly, so there are MULTIPLE reasons to remove it.


 * 1) WP:QUESTIONABLE
 * 2) WP:NPOV, IT IS CALLED "The myth of the intelligent atheist''. This is an opinion article, not a scholarly source.  I don't want to have to take this to admin
 * 3) WP:SELFSOURCE exceptions states Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims.  That is the only source for this type of criticism, if it were supporting a statement by a scholarly source, then fine, but it is making a lone extraordinary claim.Petergstrom (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The source meets WP:RS in accordance with the clause noted by User:Ramos1990. I think it's time for User:Petergstrom to drop the stick. User:Ramos1990 has already been generous with his WP:COMPROMISE version, here.--Jobas (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have taken this to WP:RSN. I already stated why the source does not meet the WP:SELFSOURCE exceptions.Petergstrom (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think any source that delves into this sort of area really needs to be peer reviewed or at least have a much higher standard than that blog. Coping with confounding factors in social sciences requires better than this. Dmcq (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added some context on the RS noticeboard to see how it goes as it does not really look like it would qualify as an unreliable source. It would fall under the "Exceptions" clause of the policy. That can be discussed there.


 * But to the reasons for removal mentioned here, they are not really convincing since Artificial Intelligence researchers of course are involved with the manufacturing of intelligence and thus are not separated from research on intelligence - both are inherently involved in intelligence research. Similar to how synthetic biology is not separated from biology - both are inherently involved in biological research.


 * The source is not really questionable to anyone. Only Petergstrom seems to have brought that up without providing any reasons for that. An example of a questionable source would be Richard Dawkins on intelligence since he has no relevance to research on intelligence.
 * The title "The myth of the intelligent atheist" or even the contents of the article is not a violation of WP:NPOV since it actually would fulfill the WP:NPOV policy. Here is what it says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Dr. Olson's piece is one of those "significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
 * With respect to WP:SELFSOURCE, Dr. Olson is not making any extraordinary claim. He is not saying atheists are dumb or anything like that. He is merely noting that wealth and income better explain the data from Lynn's paper and also he makes a simple observation from Kanazawa's paper that the differences in IQ are not distinguishable in reality since average intelligence has a wide range from 90-110. Its the same thing that is noted with men and women and their differences in IQ - not really distinguishable in real life since the numbers are not ridiculously far away, but pretty close by.


 * I will revert Petergstrom's edit once more because the original edit was not really well justified. Even what was posted on the Talk page here looked like editorial POV rather than good faith edit on making the article better. The reliability of the source is being discussed at the RS Noticebroad so removal of the source will depend on the outcome of that discussion. I will remove it if there is a consensus on it being unreliable.


 * Please discuss here before making further edits pertaining to the Olson source. I am trying to avoid more instability or edit warring. Patience is key. Huitzilopochtli (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted "For example, national wealth has a stronger correlation with intelligence than national religiosity" from the lede. It had the Olsen blog article as its source. Regardless of the final outcome of this source discussion, this content is unsupportable for a lede. It is making a claim of absolute certainty without qualification that "national wealth has a stronger correlation with intelligence than national religiosity" - there is no "maybe" there, no "possibly", no "it has been argued", no (to use the actual wording in Olsen) "[I] wonder whether". No source data or research is cited by Olsen to back up his wondering whether opinion. He does cite and link an example of another individual's similar "wondering whither", but that one is not cited as the source for the lede's claim (I have not assessed that other "wonderer" to see if in it there is more substantial evidence than mere "wondering"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As User:Ramos1990 clearly pointed out, Randy Olson is an authority on the subject and it is therefore acceptable to use the reference in the article as long as the sentence is properly attributed to him. We have consensus to use the source within the article. It should be noted that User:Petergstrom has a history of militant atheistic agenda-driven editing on Wikipedia, as demonstrated by his attempting to add information to our articles about Jesus and Moses, saying that they both had schizophrenia (see Example 1, Example 2). On the article in question, User:Petergstrom has inappropriately censored content that he just didn't like, possibly because it called into question his own antireligious POV. Other editors reading this discussion should not take it at face value but realize that this is part of a deeper problem concerning User:Petergstrom and their editing behaviour.--Jobas (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, your biased behavior, with an admitted COI on your user page are more of the concern. Firstly, see the WP:RS talk on this, it has been more or less settled and on Feb 11, the content should be removed, as only you and Ramos see the source as viable, and with your POV,  I don't think you are the best judge of viable material.  Secondly, you accuse me of censorship, when it was pointed out that the section you wrote was given undue weight to specifics, and was possibly WP:OR on your part. Your addition of christian denominations when they rank above average, and refusal when they rank below are clear demonstrations of a POV.  You should avoid editing religious articles in the future, as this POV bias and disclosed COI may continue to prove problematic.Petergstrom (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the patience with this. I have added some input on RS noticeboard. For the reason stated there, I will remove the Olson source., I think we have the matter at hand resolved so I don't think the page needs to be protected anymore. Can you kindly free up the article?


 * User:Petergstrom, User:Jobas, and others here, I have contacted the admin to see if he can free up this page. Otherwise will have to wait until the protection expires in a few days for me to make the edit. I know the topic is controversial, but lets be more charitable and assume good faith in other editors to try to make the article better and avoid reverting. Compromising is good. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Jobas - whether they are an authority or not, there is no justification for one person's (Olson) opinion to be expressed in the lede as if that opinion was an undisputable and unquestionable fact. Even Olson doesn't express his opinion with that amount of certainty, he "wonder(s) whether" it might be. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The edit war reported at AN3 was (in part) about inclusion of the Randy Olson material. User:Ramos1990, can you explain what conclusion has now been reached about the Olson material? Should I assume that Petergstrom, Jobas and others all concede that a consensus has been reached? EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi EdJohnston. Yes, pretty much on the noticeborad, there has been enough agreement that the Olson source may not be a preferable source on this wiki article. See . Only me and Jobas leaned towards keeping and I have slightly changed my mind on the matter. All other editors preferred removal so a consensus has been reached. Hope this helps.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This means that the article will no longer mention Randy Olson or cite his work? So you would go ahead an remove the material and just decide that User:Jobas is outvoted? EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi EdJohnston. Yes, the Olson source will be removed by me since I was the mediator on this. I was the one who wrote the most for keeping Olson also and Jobas agreed with me, but there should be no more issues from the Olson source since there is a consensus on it including me. Plus, there may be other sources that note different explanations too so that should accommodate everyone's concerns about imbalance in the article. Does that help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think we can get User:Jobas to comment before we draw this conclusion? EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I was thinking the same thing. We can wait for a response and if nothing comes up, you can proceed in due time. Appreciate your help with this and for being patient.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion for or against inclusion in some form in the actual article - I do not know enough about the subject, though Olson's interpretive use of statistics to support his position seems dubious. I was only against inclusion of that absolutist wording in the lede, and I also do not think the Olson claim was lede-worthy in any form given that it was just a single individual's opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, I have no opposition to remove the Randy Olson source. Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I have lifted the protection. All editors should try to avoid any recurrence of the edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Garbage

 * see P-hacking
 * identifying correlations through carefully predesigned statistical analysis is one thing.
 * trying then to make hay out of the correlations - making causal arguments based on correlation - is just COATRACK bullshit.

In other words, this "article" is garbage. To be worth the pixels it uses, it would have to be completely done over. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey Jytdog, I feel somewhat the same on this. It seems the article was made in bad taste form the start. The only thing I can think about doing to sort of add more realistic context is expanding on things that actually influence IQ like nutrition or education. At least then, there would be more context.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Is that supported by any literature? I mean the studies on this topic do cite limitations, but nothing like "predesigned" statistical analysis.Petergstrom (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * That recent addition is WAY overdoing it. WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.  That material is already covered in the intelligence article.  This is the religion and intelligence article.  That stuff is NOT relavent.


 * Considering Jytdog's concerns here, it seems appropriate to add some context about things which are known to actually impact IQ directly. Causes instead of mere peripheral correlations. Perhaps some trimming is in order because I just copied some stuff from other intelligence wkipages, but it seems more adequate than just discussing mere limited correlations between two unrelated variables. The same would apply if doing correlations between race and IQ.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Two unrelated variables? That right there is WP:OR-you just added content with undue weight, as it is content not originating from any research in the area, rather your own opinion.  The variables are very related, according to researchers in the area.  The authors of the Zuckerman study cite how they are related, it is in the lead!

"A meta-analysis suggested a negative correlation between intelligence quotient (IQ) and religiosity for western societies, related to nonconformity, more cognitive and less intuitive thinking styles, and less of a need for religion since other means that serve the same functions as religion are available."

"Third, Intelligent people may have less need for religious beliefs and practices, as some of the functions of religiosity can be given by intelligence instead. Such functions include the presentation of a sense that the world is orderly and predictable, a sense of personal control and self-regulation and a sense of enhancing self esteem and belongingness."
 * More intelligent people use less intuitive thinking styles. People aren't religious because they logically believe that religion has value(according to the Zuckerman study), it is because of a more intuitive less analytic thinking style.  Various studies have demonstrated this.  Furthermore religion is used as a coping mechanism, as cited by many studies.  Coping mechanisms are relevant in less intelligent people, or those in harsher conditions.  The variable are very related, and the very fact that you say they aren't is a POV, and WP:OR as no WP:SCIDRS source demonstrates that.  I am reverting to the most recent edit before your additions.  Until you can get a source that supports your WP:OR, and makes it wiki material, and until you give it due weight, we should keep it stable at the previous version.Petergstrom (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No that edit is not WP:OR. I have reverted it. My edit was simply a move of material related to investigations on IQ from other wikipages like Intelligence quotient which is an integral part of the scope of the article. You have to keep in mind that this page is about intelligence quotient in part and as such it has to provide background on things that are known directly to actually influence IQ like environment and heredity. I did mention trimming, but it is a start. Merely transferring relevant background information from a closely related article to another related article is not WP:OR. How does the transfer remove anything from what the articles on religiosity like Zuckerman's study say? Those studies have their own section and were not removed. Perhaps rearranging can be done?


 * In one sense, it is an attempt similar to how other controversial pages like Race and intelligence have as a format. Take note that controversial articles like this one require some comprehensive background due to the volatile nature of the topic.


 * Also, take note that the information from the intelligence quotient article which was transferred does not really take away from the article, it actually adds to it by providing readers information about factors that are related in affecting IQ. These may overlap with religiosity too in various ways.


 * Jytdog and I have already expressed some concern over the limited content of the article (Jytdog has expressed concern over coatrack) and this is one way to expand it for the readers who are unfamiliar with IQ.


 * I also think that a whole section on religiosity is in order here too as a part of the intro background to expand a little on ways people have looked at religiosity. For instance, there is research on the history of religion which notes that "religion" is a modern category, not a historical one and there are lots of studies in sociology and anthropology which also contribute to diverse views of seeing religiosity with the 3 B's belief, belonging and behavior. Recent studies on secularity show surprising convergences with religion too. This may be worth putting in to give more context. Does that help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am still very skeptical about these additions. They assume that it is religiosity that affects IQ, and they assume that this article is about religiosity on IQ.  This article, and the sources on this topic, represents the effect that IQ has on religiosity, not the other way around.  As the studies cited in this article already suggest, it appears that IQ that affects religiosity, not the other way around(thinking styles for example). The additions seem irrelevant in this light.  Take for example Effects of alcohol on memory-the article does not talk about what affects alcohol intake, rather what alcohol does to memory.  This is the type of relationship explored in the literature, so this is the type of relationship we can explore in this article.  Any other additions are WP:OR.  Petergstrom (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad to see some temporary compromising. The additions were about heredity and environment (things that actually are known to impact IQ scores) from the IQ page. In your view, how do these "assume that it is religiosity that affects IQ, and they assume that this article is about religiosity on IQ"? As far as I can see none of the content added makes any assumptions on religiosity, they merely discuss universal context or factors that influence IQ scores. Some background on universal factors that influence religiosity may be needed too. Both of these sections would provide context and background in the debates on religiosity and intelligence and vice versa. Readers can make their own conclusions on the matter. Like the race and intelligence page some background was provided because that article is also controversial.


 * Let me give one example of research showing that religiosity is not linear or consistent as Zuckerman's study assumes. Global data on the nonreligious from Pew Research center notes "The religiously unaffiliated number 1.1 billion, accounting for about one-in-six (16%) people worldwide. The religiously unaffiliated include atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion in surveys. However, many of the religiously unaffiliated have some religious beliefs. For example, belief in God or a higher power is shared by 7% of Chinese unaffiliated adults, 30% of French unaffiliated adults and 68% of unaffiliated U.S. adults. Some of the unaffiliated also engage in certain kinds of religious practices. For example, 7% of unaffiliated adults in France and 27% of those in the United States say they attend religious services at least once a year. And in China, 44% of unaffiliated adults say they have worshiped at a graveside or tomb in the past year."


 * So what are we to make of this? Belief in god is very high among those without a religion (low religiosity or no religiosity) in some areas. So, is belief in a god a good indicator of religiosity or lack of religiosity? Other religions which have no gods of course exist too. Interestingly, Pew notes that "The religiously unaffiliated are heavily concentrated in Asia and the Pacific, where more than three-quarters (76%) of the world’s unaffiliated population resides. The remainder is in Europe (12%), North America (5%), Latin America and the Caribbean (4%), sub-Saharan Africa (2%) and the Middle East and North Africa (less than 1%)." Most of the nonreligious are Asians (who have no traditions of atheism or secularism or rejection of god belief since they do not have histories of theism) and only a small minority are actually Westerners.


 * Stuff like this is what complicates the issues and why background matters for articles as controversial as this. I won't get into stuff on Jews and intelligence but there are some things on that topic which show complexity too. Does this help?


 * One small note about WP:OR since you have mentioned it a few times. WP:OR is not about adding content to an article in and of itself. Editors add stuff all the time that is relevant to the scope of an article and that is how articles grow. WP:OR it is about writing claims without citing sources. So uncited claims are the issue there. So if a person writes something like "drugs are good for passing the time" and it has no source then that is considered violation of WP:OR. But if it has a source then it is not original research.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Huitzilopochtli's comment above, esp with his assertion that WP:OR is not about adding content to an article in and of itself. Huitzilopochtli mentioned the source from the Pew Research Centre showing that religiosity is not linear or consistent as Zuckerman's study assumes; the section is about factors that influence IQ and content do not make any assumptions on religiosity, but merely discuss the universal context or factors that influence IQ scores. --Jobas (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What you guys essentially aren't getting, is that no source discusses these factors with the weight you do. We link the intelligence page, where the factors affecting intelligence are discussed.  Putting excessive weight on something that the actual research on this area puts very little weight on, is some combination of WP:OR or WP:UNDERWEIGHT.  The studies on this take into account these factors, they adjust for them.  The point is, these studies point to higher intelligence--->analytical thinking styles>less religiosity.  They don't mention nutrition, because they factor that in.Petergstrom (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * These intros occupy an appropriate amount of space. They certainly are not overbearing and certainly provide basic context on the issue about measuring religiosity. By you eliminating the intro to religiosity section, you eliminated relevant material that discusses variables involved in measuring religiosity and how they interact, including real data on how diverse they are in real life. In doing so you eliminated DUE weight material.


 * This page is about 2 things: religion and intelligence. This page is not about only intelligence. In the same way that intelligence has an intro on issues and variables relating to intelligence, so should religiosity. It only follows naturally since two different topics are united in this article and BOTH are diverse and complex. To ignore the complexity is incorrect since readers need to have wider context due to the controversial nature of the article. I have restored the material and will add some wiki links to main articles.


 * The article is NOT limited to the limits of Zuckerman's study (which is the only one you seem to notice). In other words, the article is not based on Zuckerman's study or its shortcomings because there are other sources on the issues that have mentioned alternative matters relating to both IQ and religion (e.g. wealth, economics, poverty, demographics). Keep in mind that Zuckerman's study did not take into account cultural factors - which are of course extremely important to religious identification and beleifs + the correlation also was pretty weak overall -.24 average + the studies reviewed were mostly American so was very limited + the assumption that intelligence affects religiosity was not derived from the data but by inferences on stability of IQ and instability of personal beliefs and identification - which is expected since all other realms of life are not stable either + it did not consider economic explanations + did not investigate the diversity of beliefs among the nonreligious, etc). It was certainly was a very limited, crude, and narrow study. The weak correlation does not raise much confidence in it as authoritative either.


 * You may think that "higher intelligence--->analytical thinking styles>less religiosity", but the fact that most of the nonreligious in the US have variable religious beliefs and practices such as 68% believe in God, they have significant levels of prayer, high identification as religious or spiritual certainly complicate the reality - it not a linear relationship. Other studies are available that state that analytical thinking studies do not imply that that atheists are more conscious or reflective of their own beliefs, or that atheism is the outcome of a conscious refutation of previously held religious beliefs since most identify as atheists in their youth, when they are emotionally volatile and unstable. Asians, who make up the majority of the nonreligious globally have all sorts of religious beliefs and practices too as previously noted.


 * All of this stuff is complex. The article is broad in scope and relevant material on 1) intelligence or 2) religiosity or 3) both intelligence and religiosity that help expand the complex issues involved (variables, demographics, etc) are acceptable. Just like the race and intelligence page has a section on race and a section on IQ and a bunch of other things. Many variables are involved in race and intelligence too.


 * As me an Jobas have already noted, WP:OR does NOT refer to an article. It deals only with unsourced claims. Here is what WP:OR policy says: " The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." See how it it linked to sources and content from the sources? It does not deal with an article's structure or content. 1) If a clam is made on Wikipedia and no source can be found for it, it is OR. 2) If a clam is made on Wikipedia the source says something else, it is OR.


 * Since you are being investigated right now on the admin noticeboard, for aggressive edits on religion pages including this article (nearly all of the editors who have reviewed you are supporting a ban on you), you should really not make any edits on any religion pages until your case is settled. It is better for you since many editors are seeing how you edited this page and it would be good for you not create any more attention.


 * If you feel a need to edit the page, you need to first talk it out here in the talk page in the meantime. I am willing to compromise with you, but you have to show good reasoning and willingness to compromise too. Hope this helps. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I may have been wrong about the WP:OR claim, I thought it referred also to users compiling their own conclusion from research(the type of thing a meta analysis or review would do). The point is, although this is complex, the point of us editors is to sum up research that directly related to the topic.  We cannot create a page for "intelligence and phone use" if no research on it exists.  We cannot take research on phones, and research on intelligence and speculate.  Thats is to how it works.  We are supposed
 * Find the research on the subject
 * Summarize the research on the subject in a clear and concise manner, lacking POV.
 * We are not supposed to add our own criticism, of the current research. If the criticism does not come from actual research in the area, we cannot add it.  We cannot add our own opinionated context if the research does not give that much weight to opinionated context.  The research does not give as much weight as you do to your opinion....you seem to think that adding this stuff is directly relevant, but it is not.  It is your own research, so I labeled it WP:OR.Petergstrom (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad you now understand what WP:OR refers to. It would be wise for you to read the policies and understand the context before citing them at other editors or their edits since it causes many false alarms and usaally shows aggressive or malicious intent rather than good faith in other editors intentions. As an encyclopedia, articles are supposed to have various relevant viewpoints that are related to the topic at hand and should also provide context for the readers of any article. Almost any addition to any article can be offensive or disagreeable and some editors often confuse - what a source says - from - what an editor believes - by accusing them of POV. The reality is that ALL editors have POV. Like the WP:NPOV tutorial says "Everybody has a point of view. Though 99% of the world may see something exactly the way you do, your view is still just one of many possible views that might be reasonably held." Our job is to present various viewpoints and background of ALL the issues involved.


 * I am not sure how anything I have added is somehow criticizing any particular view. You acknowledged that both religiosity and intelligence are complex, so what would be the issue? Is adding environmental or hereditary factors that influence IQ a criticism? Is adding how diverse and counterintuitive religiosity is in reality, a criticism? If so, a criticism of what exactly? These only attempt flesh out the complexity of the variables involved in the debate. The readers can make their own decisions on whether or not religiosity influences IQ in a positive or negative way or if it plays no intrinsic role at all or if other factors are what affect IQ. We as editors do not decide.


 * By the way, just do you know. On the WP:NPOV policy, it states "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we have reached a consensus on roughly where this article should be. Although Petergstrom (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Religiosity_and_intelligence
This section does not appear to discuss religiosity at all; this appears to be a general discussion on what influences IQ. Does it belong in the article? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Like the section title says, it is on factors that are known to directly influence IQ such as heredity and environment. It is background info on what is known about what influences IQ naturally. Considering that people's beliefs do not influence IQ (e.g. people do not increase or decrease in IQ because of what they believe), it makes sense that things which impact IQ like malnutrition, lack of schooling, etc would be noted in the article. Especially since the article is about a controversial topic. Does this help?Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Religiosity and intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122142438/http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP073984414.pdf to http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP073984414.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528154532/http://www.economics.harvard.edu/pub/hier/2001/HIER1913.pdf to http://www.economics.harvard.edu/pub/hier/2001/HIER1913.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319031706/http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20020205.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/dickens/20020205.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Covering Primary Sources
Compared to articles covering biology of medicine, I know that primary studies are regularly used. However, when every small primary study is covered, the article gets clunky and excessively long. As I was writing an edit that I eventually scrapped because it was WP:POINTY, I was able to collect ~30 articles adressing the topic of thinking style and religiosity; usually my first pass searches miss about 5-10 articles, so I wouldn't be surprised if the number of primary studies on the topic was around 40. If we covered every single one, the article would get clunkier than it already is. There is no reason to add to the section when it really needs to be cut down.Petergstrom (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * What is the issue? You only tried to remove one study and did not provide a valid reason for it. It was about cognitive styles like other studies in the section already mentioned and it contributed to the diversity of views on the issue. An encyclopedia is a collection of diverse views. Furthermore, the phrase for it was very short and it still is! So the suggestion of clunkyness makes no sense here. Furthermore, there are different opinions on the issue with all sorts of different findings including studies that reject that intuition and analytical thinking styles are separate (e.g. Harris and others). It is likely a false dichotomy because the brain is dynamic not a 2 mode thinking thing either way, but psychologists have all sorts of weird ideas about reality and people. Also psychological studies are all over the place about thinking styles in general, which casts doubt on any of this being reflective of reality. Pascal Boyer has some interesting things on that. Anyways, this is a controversial issue so it is expected that different views are out there showing diverse results. The point of wikipedia is to show diversity of views out there.


 * As far as the section itself, I don't really know what other wiki article would be more fit to cover this stuff. It certainly looks at home here since this page is about how people think and the quality of beliefs. Of course studies on intelligence do imply things about quality of thoughts/beliefs.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYN (WP:OR) Image
I see that you are trying to add an image to the article which is actually WP:OR, but more specifically WP:SYN. Your caption on your image said "Intelligence by religiosity from the MIDUS II dataset. Such a relationship in this dataset was found in the study "The relationship between intelligence and multiple domains of religious belief: Evidence from a large adult US sample" published by Gary J. Lewis, Stuart J. Ritchie, and Timothy C. Bates in Intelligence in 2011(Which is not to say that this image represents a replication or extension of that analysis, rather the discovery of the same relationship in the data)."

There are multiple issues with this.

1) The image is your personal synthesis (analysis) of MIDUS II data - you even say it is an independent "discovery...in the data"! This is a new idea because you are making a specific claim on a specific source and making your own conclusions on it. It is a new analysis. That is the key point. Where is your source that explicitly makes those claims and makes that plot and interpretation of those variables? You even have standard deviation bars in your plot. Clearly you are making an original analysis of MIDUS II. Editors cannot do that on wikipedia since that constitutes WP:OR. You have to use reliable sources that make those claims and interpretations of the data, per wikipedia policy. Just to clarify further, WP:OI states "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments" Your analysis on MIDUS II with respect to religion and intelligence are clearly unpublished. 2) The Gary Lewis et al source does not have such a plot either. 3) Your caption tries to link your "discovery" with the Gary Lewis eta al. and even has to explain the supposed link - clearly WP:SYN.

Obviously it violates Wikipedia policy. Otherwise, you would see many "new analysis" by wiki editors who are all anonymous with unknown credentials. Obviously the OR policy applies to all of Wikipedia, including images to safe guard from misinformation by non-experts. In general, there are very few images that can be used on wikipedia due to copyright, WP:OR, WP:SYN, etc by the way. You have to provide sources and the sources have to make those claims and interpretations of datasests.

Copyright issues emerge when there are attempts at even reproducing images like plots or graphs from literature or research because it is like bootleg material in real life they infringe on copyrights. That is why you will rarely see any plots on wikipedia - they are problematic.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Welp, I went ahead and reproduced the results from the Lynn and Harvey study of the NLS97 dataset, producing an image that is fairly consistent with their data. While I don't agree with your assessment of the older image as WP:SYN, I really don't want to go through the trouble of arguing it, when analyzing this new dataset was way quicker.Petergstrom (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Copyright issues. Will have to remove it. Reproductions are problematic because of copyrighted material. This is why you do not see plots on most wikipedia articles. Plus there is the issue of selective plots on this article., &#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no obvious copyright issue here, as there was not even a plot in the original article. Before jumping to remove the image, why don't we got a consensus, as such a move without obvious reason would be premature. I'm looking for the proper place for queries about copyrighted images, and I'm getting the feeling that this issue is too complex to be handled solely by interpreting wiki guidelines-I can't find any reference to problems of this sort. Petergstrom (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked about the paper. You are right that there is no plot on it but copyright issues can still apply because you are taking in finds on a published work are freely distributing the details of it in a visual. There are many articles here on wikipedia that have data, yet you do not see much of these plots from research articles at all.


 * Anyways, there are other reason for removing images from this article: 1) this article is quite controversial (no agreements on why the correlations are there) - variable opinions exist including links between education and income with IQ showing similar or better correlations, then there are personality traits, etc. Should we show these too? 2) Lynn's study is on god and IQ. How is god belief directly related or religiosity? Not all nations have widespread belief in god and in places like America, 68% of those without are religion still do have a belief in a god. . Globally, the situation is complex . 3) The image you have shows very little difference in IQ (they are all within average IQ range and very close to each other) and it looks like you are selecting some ranges and not others. It does look pretty crappy too. To prevent such bickering between editors, visuals on these kinds of controversial studies should not be included since there is no consensus as to why some correlations are there. Everyone has a different views on it. The text in the article does a better job of explaining the dynamics and limits of these studies.


 * The findings do not look that note worthy for a visual either since the studies find very little variance in IQ values as your 'original research' analysis and Lynn analysis showed. We should also be mindful of the controversial nature of this article and follow other controversial articles on visuals. Look at another controversial page such as Race and intelligence to see that no particular studies are emphasized as a visual there. Also see Sex differences in intelligence. Same thing. Also see Nations and intelligence. No particular study is emphasized with a visual either. Again, because of the controversial nature in these.


 * Other things can be said, but for right now these some of the issues. &#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Lynn's study was not solely on IQ and religiosity on a national level, but also in an individual sample of self described religiosity, which you seem to forget in point (2); You seem to be confusing some concepts in statistics in point (3) - just because two populations have means within a small range of the overall population mean, that does not mean that relationship is statistically or otherwise insignificant. Generally, the effect size is taken into account when determining if a statistically significant (which, this finding is with a p value of <0.005 and a sample size of >6000) finding is meaningful: the effect size of a 6 point difference is 0.4, which is generally considered moderate.  With regard to the claim that I am "selecting some ranges and not others", I don't understand what you are trying to say, but if you are referring to the bounds on the x-axis, that is matplotlibs default setting, with each point being equidistant from the edge.Petergstrom (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, follow the formats on other controversial articles on intelligence I already mentioned (Race and intelligence, Sex differences in intelligence, Nations and intelligence). No graphs on any particular studies are there due to the numerous interpretations on these controversial topics. What is to be selected by an editor on a particular plot can be a problem especially since other interpretations are there (economics, education, correlations). Readers can look further at what they find worth looking into by reading the text. Plus the article itself provides more detail and background for each study.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The "other interpretations" that exists are not actually emphasized in quality sources(published and peer reviewed journal articles). In fact, most of the alternative explanations have been introduced by you, as most of the research is fairly concise in stating that, although there are other possible explanations, they are not likely.  For example:
 * "It is possible, then, that individuals with higher intelligence may come into intellectual conflict with the arguments made by religious scripture and leaders, thus explaining our finding of a negative association between intelligence and religious belief. Alternative explanations of this association, however, should be considered; for example, it is possible that the link from intelligence to religion is not causal (in either direction), but instead reflects a third underlying variable creating a spurious association. Such a variable might be socio-economic status, which may relate to both religion, via its propensity to provide social capital (Graham & Haidt, 2010; Lewis & Bates, under review) that may be limited in areas of scarce resources, and intelligence, via poorer rearing conditions. This possibility seems unlikely, however, in line with the independent effects of intelligence on religious beliefs after controlling for level of education"
 * The Zuckerman meta analysis only mentions those "other interpretations" once in the sentence "However, our analyses of these results neither controlledfor possible relevant factors at an early age (e.g.,socioeconomic status) nor examined possible mediators(e.g., occupation) of this relation."
 * The psychology today articles and sources that are only tangentially related via your own research are the only sources that place such an emphasis on "other" interpretations.Petergstrom (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to emphasize that WP:OR does not apply to the structure of an article. It applies to material without a source. Here is what the policy says "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Since the stuff you removed IS sourced, it is not OR. It is also WP:VERIFIABLE which means that any persons can go check what the source says. There is no policy based reasons for removal. Keep in mind that WP:NPOV policy, it states "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."


 * The psychology today article is actually discussing the correlations by an expert on IQ studies. It is not tangential, it deals with religiosity along with atheism like the Lynn study did. It addressees the components affecting religiosity. That will be returned to the article.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Psychology today is not a reliable source as, like science daily, it falls under WP:PUS. Also, you neglected to read the second line of WP:OR, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)".  The text I removed obviously falls under this category.Petergstrom (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:PUS is not a policy. It is an essay. Also, are you reading the policy on OR? How does that apply to the article? It only applies to the sources and what you write about them. So if a source exists, OR does not apply. If you state claim not made in the source it is SYN like it says on the policy. Neither one applies to Nagel since it is sourced and it is almost verbatim with his explanations.


 * Psychology Today is certainly a RS since it is a mainstream periodical meant for the general public by professional psychologists. Like Scientific American or other such periodicals. INterstingly, it was owned by the American Psychological Association for 4 years too. What was written on the page was nearly a verbatim form Nagel, and if you disagree then you can suggest better wording. So again it will be returned since you have not provided a good reason for removal.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Psychology today is definitely not a good source - it is in no way scholarly, because it is largely made up of blogs. Also, are you reading WP:SYN?  Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.   This is pretty much word for word what the text was.  If the text was not explicitly saying that, as economic factors correlate strongly with religiosity, this likely mediates the relationship between intelligence and religiosity, then you can't draw that conclusion yourself.Petergstrom (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. Psychology Today is secondary source with content written by experts and scholars in the field. Newsblogs are not the same as blogs from random sources WP:NEWSBLOG. This is a professional publication with experts opinions on numerous topics. It is not a random publication. Also, Nagel is a researcher on intelligence not a random guy. No one objected to it when it was added on while you were disputing another source from a AI researcher. This isn't SYN because I am not getting other conclusions aside from what the source states. Furthermore, the source states that the reason why differences in IQ and religiosity exist:

"When one looks at this phenomenon from the point of view of comparisons between countries, it is not hard to figure out possible reasons that more intelligent countries have more atheists as Richard Lynn (2009) reported. Here are some. Highly religious countries (Barber, 2012): Are poorer. They are less urbanized. Have lower levels of education. They have less exposure to electronic media that increase intelligence (Barber, 2006). Experience a heavier load of infectious diseases that impair brain function. Suffer more from low birth weights. Have worse child nutrition. Do a poor job of controlling environmental pollutants such as lead that reduce IQ. Given that each of these factors are recognized causes of low IQ scores (Barber 2005), there is little mystery about why religious countries score lower on IQ tests."

Pretty clear that it links IQ with social economic conditions, not religiosity. He even states that he doubts religion causes stupidity because smart people have been religious like Newton. In the end, he says "In short, discussing correlations between IQ and religiosity without a grasp of the relevant underlying factors is something of a parlor game. It recalls the long and tiresome debate about the correlation between IQ scores and skin color that got a lot of people very excited but proved a scientific dead end."

Read Nagel and tell me what you think he is saying. &#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are confusing two things that we were talking about. The psychology today article is independent from the WP:SYN I removed.  Why don't you reread what I was saying with that in mind.Petergstrom (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The quote are there for you to see what Nagel says. Rewording could fix any disagreements even though the wording was pretty much spot on per the source almost verbatim. Your cannot claim SYN (making claims not in the source or fusing sources to make a novel claim) when there is none - see the quotes. Do you see him making an alternate claim? Per the NPOV Policy - you should also not remove content that is sourced (see in blue above) when rewording could be a solution since the source is by an expert in IQ studies not a random person. The second thing is that you are claiming it is possibly not a RS. I already addressed that. Newsblogs by experts are not the same as self published blogs. Blogs from Psychology Today, Scientifc American or Time magazine or Newsweek are perfectly acceptable for wikipedia. They have editorial oversight. Psychology today even was owned by the American Psychological Association before too. Again if you do not have any good reason for removal it will be put back in to the article. Finally, going back to an older post on this - you cannot use one study to say that another study is not allowed. Each study comes to different conclusions and none are authoritative or decisive in an encyclopedia. They both can be included to provide balance and perspective to the article.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We have wildly different understandings of WP policies. I thonk we should probably tale the issue to RS or something like that.Petergstrom (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The polices are clear, but you may not be applying the contexts correctly. Please go over them carefully. I will go ahead and do the image removal for the time being since it is the format of the other controversial articles on intelligence (Sex, Race, Nations). It helps keep the article neutral. By the way, you have not really made a reason for Nigel. You would have to elaborate more than what you have so far. If you don't have a good reason then it will be returned. You should also consider the context of the sources. WP:NEWSBLOG provides guidelines on this (it on the policy page for verifability) with being careful and adding attribution for the expert who wrote the piece. Also please elaborate on . The studies available already note social economic factors do play a role in IQ. This is relevant when looking at nations and IQ since these factors play a major role in IQ. The correlations are actually superior and way stronger r =.65 and up so these seem relevant to discussions of things that impact IQ. Claiming OR on this is incorrect because wikipedia actually defines that term it explicitly as "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." It is clear. Unsourced material is OR, but if a source exists, it is not OR. It could be something else, but not that. You made an article before so you should know that OR does not apply to article design (sections or subtopics relevant to the article). Editors decide the scope of the article, not wikipedia policy - which is why you see articles that are very diverse in content relevance. We can use the other controversial articles like Race and intelligence, Sex differences in intelligence, Nations and intelligence to get ideas on the width of the scope. Their structures include all sorts of things from genetics, to bias in literature to, social economic factors, etc. Their scopes are wide, not narrow to just studies about only race or sex and IQ. Many factors are involved. The same should go here on this article.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Look, the bottom line is, Psychology Today is a self published blog, and I think that the precedent set by the previous case is pretty clear; we need to stick to scholarly sources, ESPECIALLY on a page as controversial as this. As for WP:OR, text is still OR even if you can find a source for it - if wikipedia editors were given freedom to make their own inferences from the literature, there would be a lot of speculation.  If you can find a source that SPECIFICALLY argues that the economic correlation is better, then go ahead and use it. However, you can't just grab a source on the relationship between economic factors and religiosity and put it in a context that is was not originally in - that is WP:OR because it involves inference on your own part.  Even if it is backed up by a crappy source, at best, you could put in a line with the crappy source.  You could look at the legitimate studies that note economic factors correlate well, and you can use those to cite a neutral statement.  However, the way you are putting it, using qualifiers like "superior", is not how any of the studies report this potential relationship.  Petergstrom (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Psychology Today is not a self published blog. It actually is a popular science magazine with articles, columns, etc. The other case was an expert on their own site. That is not the same thing. You also do not seem to understand what OR means in wikipedia. Please quote the definition from wikipeia itself (hint - its the first line). OR does not apply to article structure because all articles are made up by editors and changed constantly. Other wise, your articles you have made are purely OR if you stretch the definition to mean anything anyone does on wikipedia. The scope of the article involves things that influence IQ (quite a few things), things that influence religion (quite a few things too), and interactions between them if any. Obviously looking at the race, sex, and nations articles they provide a spot to emulate in terms of the stuff in here.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly stating that you're correct and telling me to read a policy page is not constructive at all. There is obviously a fundamental disagreement here in how to interpret policies, and I think that it stems from your history of largely editing soft science and non science articles - the editors we regularly interact with, and the topics we regularly deal with are different.  So can you stop throwing the first line of WP:OR at me, and perhaps try reading more than it - maybe up to the point where it says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.Petergstrom (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep on quoting SYN but you never providing quotes about what Nigel said. I provided quotes about what he said so clearly I am not mistaking what he says. Making assertions without providing evidence is a problem. 1) There is no combing of sources, 2) all that I wrote was nearly verbatim of what he said so I am not claiming anything the source is not. Please provide a quote from Nigel showing what he is saying please. He provides a list. &#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought we covered this??? We are talking about two different things. Go back, and read the conversation.Petergstrom (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You never quoted or showed anything on this. You merely made an assertion but never show how he did not argue that IQ is better correlated with social economic things. He provides a list for why religious countries have lower scores. I provided quotes but you did not. I made it green for you to see what he actually said. Also please no personal attacks. Be civil.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * When did I make a personal attack? Are you seriously telling me to be civil?  Right back at ya bud.  What I have told you at least 3 times, and what you still do not get, is that 1) The Nigel blog post is not what I am calling WP:OR, this, this, and this removal is justified because not a single one of those sources actually directly addressed the relationship between intelligence and religiosity. 2)The Pop psychology source is not valid, but if you keep insisting it is, we should just take it to WP:RN to see what others think.Petergstrom (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Appreciate you finally showing what you are talking about. I actually appreciate it. Those three examples are not OR because there are sources provided, but if you want you can try asking about OR at if you like. Other types of similar situations are discussed. I took the Psychology Today piece to RS noticebroad to get other opinions on it . I am curious to see what others think. Will wait and see. In terms of personal attack, you said, "I think that it stems from your history of largely editing soft science and non science articles - the editors we regularly interact with, and the topics we regularly deal with are different." It is an odd remark to make on another editor with whom you do not really know. Editing particular topics does not really define an editor and I have had no trouble with editing hard sciences like chemistry articles or thermodynamics. Other articles are more fun than these :) Anyways, I apologize in advance if you have misunderstood me.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

meta analysis/ "critical review" conclusions
At the start of paragraph 2, the lede refers "The Relationship between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Critical Review of the Literature", which was actually quite critical of the conclusions of a meta analysis that we have quoted. Their overall conclusion states that ".. our assertion, based on the above-reviewed studies, is that any noted intelligence differences seen between people of varying religious beliefs is most likely the result of educational differences that are in turn the result of holding fundamentalist religious beliefs, rather than the result of an innate difference in intelligence. Therefore, controlling for levels of fundamentalist beliefs are likely to make any differences between theists and non-theists..." The journal article feels quite comprehensive for this topic, and it feels to me like this conclusion should be given more prominence.

Do other people agree with me on this

Link to article i am referring to: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Caleb_Lack/publication/283062772_The_relationship_between_intelligence_and_religiosity_A_critical_review_of_the_literature/links/5628672708aef25a243bf104/The-relationship-between-intelligence-and-religiosity-A-critical-review-of-the-literature.pdf WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble validating the reliability of the journal it was published in. It's very similarly named to a couple of other journals and Google is not being my friend here. Can anyone confirm the reliability of Journal of Scientific Psychology as a source? I found one article singing its praises in very confident terms as the future of Psychological journals... published by the Journal of Scientific Psychology, which seems like a bit of a warning bell to me. I'm interested in other opinions here; I would not claim any confidence that it isn't reliable, just that, from what I've found, I'm not yet confident that it is reliable yet.Simonm223 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The source is from a peer reviewed journal. . It looks like it may be worth including here. My $0.50.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the organization "publishes"(uploads to the internet for free) about 3 articles a year, if you look at the list of editors many belong to the same school at the authors of this "paper". This would be like citing a small town newspaper for globally important facts without asking ourselves why no one else is reporting it. Of 19 (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . I checked the article and the source you found is not in the article itself yet. Certainly not in the 2nd paragraph of the lede. It seems relevant for you to incorporate "The Relationship between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Critical Review of the Literature" into the article somewhere since it is quite relevant. Hope this helps.&#32;Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)