Doug Batchelor and IQ

[Gregory Matthews]

In the following video, Doug Batchelor suggests that on the average, males score 5 points higher on an IQ test than do females.

https://atoday.org/at/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Doug-Batchelor-Women-Pastors-_-A-Biblical-Perspective.mp4

My comment as one who has studied IQ tests on the graduate level:

The idea behind  IQ tests is that they are not subject to any kind of bias--cultural, education, social, and more.  In actual fact,  they are imperfect and seem to have some built-in bias in several areas.  This is recognized and not thought to indicate an actual deficit in intelligence.

In short:  A 5-point difference, if it exists, is not thought to indicate a difference in intelligence between males and females.

NOTE:  Another link to the DB video may be found at:

https://atoday.org/a-fully-gendered-hermeneutic-chapter-2-2/

 

 

 

 

[phkrause]

I didn't hear him say "according to DB, men have a higher IQ than women!" What I heard was that according to a British Journal!! Also just taking a little blurb from one of his Q&A lectures doesn't help either. And besides my wife's IQ is higher than mine, but according to the British Journal, not DB, men on average have higher IQs. I believe that there are other factors that make some smarter than others! Also this pitting one pastor (DB) against another (LS) is the lowest class of behavior for our church or any other churches!! I find garbage like that very degrading of people who are better than that!

[B/W Photodude]

Sometime in the past, it was discovered that there were members of Mensa (That society for supersmart people) who were also members of the NAZI party. I suspect there will be many "not so smart" people who will be in heaven. So, how does all that smartness really help some people?

Which also brings me to a question I have wondered in the past regarding how being really smart affects your religious experience and even your ability to follow God with all your heart. Seems some have noted that being smarter makes it more likely you will fail in your Christian walk. Solomon is a good example, if you are going to check out how another person failed.

[Gregory Matthews]

There is a short video there.

The links that I provided do not give you access to the video and I do now know why.

The links that I provided gave me access to the video.

[Gregory Matthews]

see:

https://atoday.org/a-fully-gendered-hermeneutic-chapter-2-2/

If you go to that Adventist Today website, open the article and click on the embedded link titled "according to Doug Batchelor, inferior IQ"  you should be able to view the video of DB.  At least I can do so.

For some reason, it does if you click on any link that I have posted in this thread, you only get an audio.  I do not understand.

 

Well, I just tried it on the link above and it worked.  It did take me to the video.   

 

 

[phkrause]

I also believe that if you go to the AFTV website you will find the whole IQ video series and not just the little blurb that in my opinion seems to take his comments out of context. I'll see if I can find the whole thing and post. You'll have to give me time to find it.

[B/W Photodude]

You can't get much smarter than Lucifer and where did it get him! He will deceive everyone who does not have an abiding relationship with God before this controversy on earth is done. Your smarts will not save you.

However, do keep in mind that IQ tests only test for a limited number of intelligences. And some believe they test more for what is native to men. There are many different kinds of intelligence that are not tested. So, I would not want to walk out on a limb claiming men or women are smarter (there are more women and men [who need to hand in their man card] who will claim women are smarter). And I certainly would not use intelligence as an indicator of the WO question. Some might suspicion that that is where DB was going with that.

[JoeMo]

EGW was never known for her stratospheric IQ; yet she was more in tune with God than a vast majority of people.  IQ tests do not measure spiritual "smarts". I have a high IQ; but I know lots of people with less worldly "smarts" than I have that are light-years ahead of me in spiritual "smarts".  God does not necessarily use the mentally gifted to spread his word.  He uses people full of the Holy Spirit (which, IMHO, a source of infinite spiritual "smarts").

"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. "(1 Cor. 2:14)

[phkrause]

9 hours ago, phkrause said:

I also believe that if you go to the AFTV website you will find the whole IQ video series and not just the little blurb that in my opinion seems to take his comments out of context. I'll see if I can find the whole thing and post. You'll have to give me time to find it.

It's actually call "MIQ" Most Important Questions. I haven't found the one I'm looking for yet!!

[Dr. Shane]

Adventist Today is known for stirring up controversy and strife where there is peace and harmony.  So I am not a big fan of theirs.  I am not a big fan of DB either.  I don't know if men on average have an IQ of 5 points more than women but one study would not be enough to be conclusive on such an issue.  It certainly seems strange for a gospel minister to focus on such a thing.  Regardless, IQ tells only of ability to learn and not knowledge acquired.    Those with higher IQs are also more likely to suffer mental illness.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

On 1/6/2019 at 5:06 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Doug Batchelor:  on the average, males score 5 points higher on an IQ test than do females

he's using data from an old 2005 study by Irwing and Lynn.... 

But aside from that, what is notably absent from from Batchelor's statement, is the study's difference in standard deviation for men vs women.  Males' scores were spread out over the curve, whereas females tended to cluster around the mean — meaning males may have more "geniuses," but they also have more of significantly lower intelligence than women.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

erhmmm.... I was referring to the statistical meaning of "standard deviation"...

 

[B/W Photodude]

26 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I get what you are trying to say here; however, IMO "standard" is the wrong word to reflect perceived deviations between men and women. Said "deviations" are so subjective; I often wonder how anyone (eg Doug Batchelor) can even bother with such mantra to "prove" some theological point.

Intelligence is such a complicated topic, especially to try and compare different groups. As I noted before, IQ tests only look at a limited number of kinds of intelligence and may not even really look at the types of intelligence that women have versus what men have although both can excel in the other sexes special intelligences very well.

You can draw inaccurate conclusions when you try to quickly look thru articles on intelligence or scan the bell curves images for intelligence. Especially when the party putting out the bell curve presents them in such a way as to cause the uninformed to draw hasty inaccurate conclusions. I tend to think that any effort to promote either sex over the other in terms of intelligence is a foolish venture. This gets even more complicated as researchers can now even see differences in brain function generally between men and women.

The part that DB should have considered is that doing the work that God has assigned is not dependent on the exact number of your IQ test results. Someone wholly devoted to doing God's will but of average intelligence can do a far more effective work than a very intelligent person who knows how smart they are can do. Where's the humility?!

[JoeMo]

16 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

IMO "standard" is the wrong word to reflect perceived deviations between men and women.

Standard deviation is calculated by a precise mathematical formula whose results are based solely on the distribution of the variable being measured.  

Assuming a normal distribution, the standard deviation is given by the formula: s means 'standard deviation'. Now, subtract the mean (average) individually from each of the numbers given and square the result.

 

The formula is totally agnostic to the data being analyzed, and is deterministically accurate for all normal distributions.

[Gregory Matthews]

A normal distribution  of data is considered to be a so-called "bell curve."  This is just one of the mathematical standards by which research data is subjected to in an attempt to determine validity, reliability and more.  While the research data may be subject to bias itself, the standard deviation is subject only to the data and  of itself is not subject to bias. 

[Gregory Matthews]

The standard deviation reflects the properties of the sample (population--whatever is being measured) itself.  Therefore, the standard deviation of a measured sample that does NOT reflect a standard bell-shaped curve will be different from the standard deviation of a normal bell-shaped curve.

In brief, the standard deviation is NOT the same for all measured samples.  Rather, it is specific to each measured sample.   By comparing the actual standard deviation of a measured sample with the standard deviation of a normal bell shaped curve, one will have information as to the reliability and validity of the measured results.

In a measured sample of X size, one can predict that if the sample is normal, there will be Y number who will score 3 standard deviations away from the Mean in a positive direction.. If the measured number differs from that expected (normal) number, it is clear that the measured sample was not representative of a normal population.  

In research one wants to have a defined normal population with a representative sample.

So, standard deviation numbers outside of the norm suggest that either the population/sample is not normal or that they have not been appropriately defined.  This suggests that the results may be in error.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The standard deviation of a normal bell-shaped curve is always the same, and does not depend upon the size of the sample/population measured.  NOTE:  There is an assumption here that the size of the sample was appropriate.  A sample of 12 people is not an appropriate size, although I have read some such being done.

A standard deviation that differs from the normal clearly shows that the sample/population is not representative and therefore the results may be in error, or that some other problem exists.

Typical research is imperfect.  Therefore, the measurement of the standard deviation of the sample may not perfectly agree with the normal results.   Therefore another mathematical measurement, along with others is typically made.   Most accepted research is either conducted at the 95% confidence level of at the 90% confidence level.  As long as the results meet that stated level, a minor difference in standard deviation is accepted.

Two other important measurements are that of validity and reliability.

Validity:  To what extent did the research actually measure the factor that the research intended to measure.

Reliability:  To what extent can someone conducting the same research be expected to reach the same results? 

 

 

 

[B/W Photodude]

36 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

A standard deviation that differs from the normal clearly shows that the sample/population is not representative and therefore the results may be in error, or that some other problem exists.

Bell curves usually will be valid, but all possibilities for misshapen bells have not been considered. There are bimodal curves. And there are skewed curves. But this all gets into a real course in statistics.

Also, you can have a perfectly accurate bell curve for the data, but as mentioned, there can be biases in the way the data collection was achieved. And even after you have crunched the numbers and have your bell curve, the person presenting the information can, purposely or unintentionally, present it in a misleading manner. 

There are many ways to mislead with statistics and unfortunately I find it happens enough that I, at first read, accept few of them. Single studies are not a good way to make decisions. An ethical researcher will not object to independent studies to verify results. It is not unknown for someone to publish results, but no one else can get the same results.

There was a book published some time ago titled "How to Lie with Statistics."
 

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes and such as a bi-modal curve produce standard deviations that differ from that of a normal bell curve.

 

[JoeMo]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I have rarely seen examples of same where an "entire population demographic"  is sampled from.

The population they are referring to is not people, it is the entire set of data points being analyzed.  The biggest assumption in the calculation is whether or not the data population truly fits the definition of a "normal distribution" or "bell curve".  Different types of distributions (like a lognormal distribution or an extreme value distribution) have different calculations for standard deviation.  Standard deviation is not a philosophical principal; it is a mathematical principle that has been used is formal statistical analysis for centuries no matter what data is being used.  for example, in a normal distribution, one standard deviation on either side of an average covers 68% of the data of the average, two standard deviations covers about 95% of the data, and 3 standard deviations covers about 99.7% of the data.  The smaller the standard deviation, the steeper the slopes are of  either side of the average

If a normal distribution of a woman's intelligence is 100 plus or minus a standard deviation of 10, 68% of women will have an IQ between 90 and 110.  If a man's IQ is 100 plus or minus a standard deviation on 15, 68% of men will have an IQ between 85 and 115; meaning somewhat less than 68% of men will have an IQ between 90 and 110.  Yes, there may be more male geniuses than female geniuses, but there are also more male dummies than female dummies.

This little lesson in statistical analysis only pertains to normal distributions in the natural world.  It is not valid for SUPER normal distributions in the SUPERnatural world.  Of course, all statistics are out the window if data is falsified.  If data is authentic, only flawed statistical analysis will bias the results.  And a clever statistician can make statistics say anything he wants.  For example, some analysts will tell you that 99% of all heroin addicts started by smoking marijuana.  They don't tell you that only 2% of marijuana users move on to heroin. (I just made up that statistic.  In fact, studies show that 87.35% of all statistics are made up on the spot.)

[JoeMo]

12 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

it will be seen that "statistics are often not reality.

An example of this is "average temperature".  The average high in my area for this time of year is about 45 degrees; but it's never 45 degrees.  It's either 30 degrees or 55 degrees.  when you calculate the average temperature for the day over 150 years, it comes in at 45 degrees.

BTW, I made up the statistic of 87.35%.

[JoeMo]

8 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

My fear is that "statistics" as we currently know about them have too many loose ends, variables, and exceptions to be considered seriously in analyzing people.

It is the misuse of statistics that hampers proper analysis.  For twenty years of my career, I relied on probability and statistics to predict outcomes of various alternative strategies pursued by the energy companies I worked for.  I learned by trial and error the rabbit trails that improper use of or interpretations of statistical data and the resulting probabilities can lead to unexpected consequences.  The main problem is you never have all of the data; and you don't always know what you don't know. 

Another problem is that when analysts see a correlation between two sets of data, the mistakenly interpret that correlation as causation.

The problem with IQ tests is that they make no distinction among different types of intelligence.  Someone might be able to calculate the Dow Jones Industrial Average in their heads; but not know how to match his/her clothes.  Another may be able to build a beautiful home by himself, but not know how to balance a checkbook.  Another might be brain damaged by a stone hitting her head as a child; and yet provide great spiritual insight to millions around the world.

[phkrause]

14 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I guess we have Pastor Doug to thank for this?

Why?? No one else does that?? Well I don't thank Pastor Doug for that!! I thank him for being a good example of a Christian that loves Jesus and is not afraid of standing up for Him!! He's not the only one, there are many other Adventist pastors that are willing to stand up for God and his word, the Bible.

[Gregory Matthews]

As fare as "average" is concerned:  There are three standard types of average:  Mean, Median and Mode.

 

[B/W Photodude]

23 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I suspect that as knowledge increases over time, it will be seen that "statistics are often not reality. For eg, there is not just one type or form of "intelligence" as typically thought of in "IQ" and I am thinking thats why one will rarely see a job opening for "statisticians" on the job board. I once looked at a text book they use for training, and got scared of my own shadow after that lol

Having taken a statistics class at one point (a requirement for grad school), it was kind of interesting to a point. How many weeks can you sit thru a class on coin tosses, etc. But the bell curve stuff was quite interesting. And yes, the bell curve is usually so uniform that you can even buy little "stencils" to draw perfect bell curves into your home work. I even kept my textbook from the class. A few years ago, when Apple was beginning to convert over to the OsX platform, "Classic" mac software suddenly was getting dumped onto eBay at fantastic savings. I bought a statistics program for the computer that went for nearly a thousand dollars for only $25! I still have a classic bootable Mac and one of these days I will fire up the software and play with it. However, I need some numbers to crunch thru it.

Most universities and research medical centers will keep on staff statisticians to assist with research projects. To do a thorough statistics prep for a paper is a bit much for many people. I am sure that throughout private industry and government that there are many more such positions. However, statistician is not usually one you are going to see on a job board. At least the job boards at the supermarket that I have seen. Somewhere between the guy who will mow your lawn and the babysitting jobs!

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 33.8 percent employment growth for statisticians between 2016 and 2026. In that period, an estimated 12,600 jobs should open up.

https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/statistician

Now, those job descriptors and benefits are something I could get into!