Religion makes people stupid

Smart people are more likely to be atheists and go to sleep later at night

According to an evolutionary psychologist, the more intelligent people are better able to deal with what is evolutionarily new

To be religious or even conservative does not indicate a high level of intelligence. Two years ago, a study found that the greater the intelligence of the people, the lower the religious belief. According to a sociological study, countries with a high proportion of religious people are said to be more socially dysfunctional than those with a less religious population (are religious societies "better"?).

According to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Political Science, intelligent people are commonly oriented towards values ​​and preferences that are new in human evolutionary history. Religions, too, were once new, but now the more intelligent contemporaries are more likely to flirt with the consequences of the Enlightenment, i.e. with atheism and liberalism. For men - but not for women - on the other hand, the preference for sexual exclusivity is said to be a sign of higher intelligence.

Kanazawa writes in his study, which was published online in advance for the journal Social Psychology Quarterly, that evolutionarily new preferences and values ​​are those that are not already biological and differ from those that have been changed by evolution for millions of years, which is why they are evolutionarily familiar.

In an earlier study, the evolutionary psychologist claims to have found out that more intelligent people stay up longer at night, but sleep longer and get up later than the less intelligent. From which the conclusion might be drawn that, by virtue of their intelligence, they might have found activities that favor such a way of life. Kanazawa attributes this to the fact that our ancestors did not have any artificial light, which is why the night was largely canceled. That is why people went to sleep shortly after dark and got up at dawn. On the other hand, it is evolutionarily new if you like to stay up late at night and rather shorten the time of day.

Kanazawa is now arguing that evolutionary humans have so far been rather conservative and primarily care for their family and friends, i.e. the old clan and horde, while the liberals, understood more as the progressive towards the conservatives, less as economic liberals of the Type FDP, would also take care of an unlimited number of genetically unrelated strangers with whom they never had anything to do with. This is evolutionarily new, so more intelligent children today would go in the direction of this kind of liberalism.

A long-term study should support the thesis. Young adults who describe themselves as "very liberal" would do significantly better in their adolescence with an average IQ of 106 than those who describe themselves as "very conservative" and only achieve an IQ of 95. Adolescents who describe themselves as not religious at all, with an IQ of 103, are also more intelligent than those who consider themselves very religious (IQ 97). However, one could argue that people tend to be more liberal in their youth and tend to turn more towards the conservative camp as they get older. A British survey of students claims to have just found that they are astonishingly conservative.

Religion, which is always given as support and support for the weak, is for the evolutionary psychologist an expression of paranoia, which is an evolutionary characteristic of man. God corresponds to a paranoid world view, because here not only a total surveillance takes place, but behind all natural phenomena the working of a God is assumed, who could then be called Big Brother. The basic paranoid attitudes served the people when self-preservation and protection of families and clans still made an omnipresent attention to dangers necessary. Now the smarter children would be more likely to become atheists.

But why should the more intelligent men no longer be polygamous, so try to have sexual relationships with several women, which is usually assumed by evolutionary psychologists? For Kanazawa this was also the case in the past, that men tended to be polygamous and women tended to be monogamous. It is simply evolutionarily new when men are monogamous or sexually exclusive. From this one would have to conclude that polygamy, as it was tolerated in many Islamic countries or practiced by the Mormons, would be a sign of lower intelligence. In any case, according to Kanazawa's theory, the monogamous men are more intelligent than the philanderers. However, intelligence has nothing to do with how you ultimately feel about marriage, family, children and friends.

Intelligence, the evolutionary psychologist explains, the ability to think and reflect, made it easier for our ancestors to deal with evolutionarily novel problems: "As a result, it is more likely that more intelligent people will recognize and understand such novel entities and situations than less intelligent ones People. The novel entities and situations also include preferences, values ​​and lifestyles. " (Florian Rötzer)

Read comments (382 posts) errorsDrucken