QUESTION: Are Atheists Really Smarter?

A dating website has implied that atheists are more educated or intelligent than religious people. But applying the rationality that is supposed to accompany atheist thought highlights some major caveats.

It’s not often you can release a set of statistics comparing the reading levels of people of different religions and it be among the least contentious sections of a report, but that’s what’s happened with dating site OKcupid. As we’ve covered on a couple of occasions, the people behind the site make a regular habit of digging into the database of user profiles and uncovering data trends.

Their latest effort involved scanning the profile essays written by 526,000 users. Their report on the results concentrates on the statistical distinctions between users of different racial backgrounds. The resulting lists aren’t the words used most often by each group, but rather the words which appeared most for that group in comparison to people as a whole.

If you are currently trying to rid your mind of prejudiced assumptions that white people like golf and hockey, black people like basketball and Kanye West, Latinos like dancing and fighting, and Asians like software development and muay thai, don’t worry: the results suggest you are exactly right. Still, this section was completely worthwhile for OKCupid’s Christian Rudder noting:

” If you’re trying to figure out if white dudes like something, put ‘fucking’ in the middle, and say it out loud. If it sounds totally badass, white dudes probably love it.”

The report also looked at the writing style used by people of different backgrounds and used a readability index to assess how sophisticated the writing was. On the racial side, if your assumption is that Asian and Indian people are on top (for international readers, the US definition of “Asian” refers to the far East) and that black and Latino people are on the bottom, you are again correct.

The site also listed a breakdown by religious background, as shown above.

At first glance this is great news for avid atheists who believe their view shows a greater degree of reason. I’m not going to discuss that belief (I’ll leave that to the comment section), but it is important to note that if reason is the issue, there are some objective points that mean we just can’t be sure how firm a conclusion can be drawn from this study:

* The differences really aren’t that significant: from top to bottom is perhaps a little more than one grade. While its debatable as to what the correct baseline is for reading ages by grades (and reading grades don’t represent a proportional increase), if you start the y axis at “zero”, the differences look less spectacular:

* The reading level at which you write is not necessarily a sign of education or intelligence. While it’s likely that the brighter you are, the more sophisticated or complex the level you are capable of writing will be, there comes a point where some writers will consider it more effective to write in a clearer manner that, while doing a better job of communication, scores lower on automated scales. The results could even indicate that people of certain religions (or non-religions) might be more likely to write in a style designed primarily to make them look more intelligent.

* There’s a flaw with the sample group. While 526,000 users means we can be confident it very accurately reflects the population, that population is users of dating sites rather than the general public. If you want to create a hypothesis to dismiss the results as significant, you could argue that those of a more religious background are more likely to have wanted to get married earlier in life — and the smart ones were snapped up first, leaving the less bright ones looking for a mate alongside clever atheists who find it more efficient to look for love online than at church dances.

Of course, there’s no evidence that any of my suggestions have any validity whatsoever. But anyone who believes in rational thought (regardless of their personal faith) should realize the study doesn’t give anywhere near enough evidence to back Rudder’s comment “Is there a Comic Sans version of the Bible? There really should be.”



The British were playing D&D on Television in the 80s.

Here’s an odd one from the past. Around the same time that Double Dare was being shown in American households, British television had “Knightmare,” a game show where one contestant would play a “dungeoneer,” traveling through an animated dungeon of chromakey rooms. He would be guided by three other contestants, hunkered over a television screen, who saw his progress and told him where to step, what to say, and cast spells for him. D&D with a little bit of Dragon’s Lair mixed with Nick Arcade.

Despite the fact that there was no dice rolling, the game felt like one of those old school D&D sessions. The three advisors even took notes on large clipboards. The only thing missing was Mountain Dew and potato chips – well, crisps, because this is the U.K., after all. The gameshow host was even called Dungeon Master Treguard, and as for why the dungeoneer couldn’t see more than a foot in front of his face? Well, each Dungeoneer wore a “Helmet of Justice” to protect the dungeoneer from seeing the danger ahead. (Sort of like Peril Sensitive Sunglasses.)

You can check out an old surviving episode here. In this one, the contestants successfully navigate the dungeon – a rarity, as the game was brutally difficult, with most of the game a giant lateral thinking puzzle. The show ran for eight years – in that time, only eight teams successfully navigated the dungeon.



Featured Animated Short: World of Motion

An exploration in nostalgia, “World Of Motion” is a tribute to man’s various achievements in transportation and technology. Oh, and be sure to hit the HD button and put the video in full screen mode AFTER hitting that play button! Enjoy!

[Via Vimeo]

Awesome Google Instant Promo Clip

For those who haven’t heard about Google Instant yet, be sure to read this before watching the video.

Don’t you just love this song? :)

How NOT to fire a Watermelon from a Giant Slingshot

Ok, I’m posting this just as an excuse to plug in our old “Mongo the Trebuchet” video, but still, getting a watermelon smashed in your face like this must be kind of unpleasant.

[Via Geekologie]

A First Look at Captain America

These stunt shots were taken in London at the official Captain America movie set. Enjoy!

[Via TheSuperficial]

Apple backtracks on Flash restrictions

Apple says it will allow app developers to more easily transfer Flash-based applications to the iPhone system, under certain circumstances.

In a statement released today, the company said it was “relaxing all restrictions on the development tools used to create iOS apps, as long as the resulting apps do not download any code.” It’s billing this as a solution to “give developers the flexibility they want, while preserving the security we need.”

While the change will affect a range of tools and systems, the biggest effect is likely to be that it allows companies that develop apps in Adobe’s Flash to more easily convert them to run on iPhones without the expense of effectively starting from scratch.

The change may be enough to stave off an apparent Federal Trade Commission investigation into whether banning apps converted from Flash is an illegal anticompetitive move. There certainly doesn’t seem to be any question of Apple being forced to allow Flash itself to run on iPhone devices, no matter how much it might upset Adobe.

Apple has also announced it will be publishing its review guidelines that decide which apps are allowed in the iTunes store. As we’ve covered on several occasions, the past mystery over the process, along with the seeming inconsistency between what is and isn’t allowed on taste grounds, has left many developers in the dark, most notably one who had to guess what wording was acceptable to describe the various options in a flatulence simulator.

My money is still on the review process being a monkey throwing banana skins into one of two piles, though I’m guessing Apple will use technical jargon to make that sound more impressive.