> "What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?"
Same as any other population group:
(1) Assess each individual as an individual without pre-judgement based on group membership; remember that individuals may be typical or atypical of every population group of which they are a member
(2) Use group…
> "What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?"
Same as any other population group:
(1) Assess each individual as an individual without pre-judgement based on group membership; remember that individuals may be typical or atypical of every population group of which they are a member
(2) Use group level statistics ONLY for context with other group level statistics using the same categories (comparing like with like). So if there were also population group level statistics about Protestants and Atheists differing in some social or material trait which might influence, or be influenced by, IQ, then examining for correlations or even cautious causations would be on the table. Such awareness could lead to alternative hypotheses which can be examined with evidence and reasoning. This "like with like" statistical group level analysis MUST be kept separate from assessing individuals!
(3) Take general intelligence (as measured by IQ) as only one of many factors which affect people's success and satisfaction in life; a significant one which should not be ignored or unduly discounted, but also not dominant in itself. True at both the individual and group levels.
I use such an example because some population groupings have such emotional charge that many readers may have trouble looking at them objectively - in part because they don't read what one is writing, but instead "hear echos" of some past thing that other people have written and are unable to emotionally separate the two. (Not saying you personally, just some humans in general).
> "What should we do if we found that Atheists had higher IQ, on average, than Protestants?"
Same as any other population group:
(1) Assess each individual as an individual without pre-judgement based on group membership; remember that individuals may be typical or atypical of every population group of which they are a member
(2) Use group level statistics ONLY for context with other group level statistics using the same categories (comparing like with like). So if there were also population group level statistics about Protestants and Atheists differing in some social or material trait which might influence, or be influenced by, IQ, then examining for correlations or even cautious causations would be on the table. Such awareness could lead to alternative hypotheses which can be examined with evidence and reasoning. This "like with like" statistical group level analysis MUST be kept separate from assessing individuals!
(3) Take general intelligence (as measured by IQ) as only one of many factors which affect people's success and satisfaction in life; a significant one which should not be ignored or unduly discounted, but also not dominant in itself. True at both the individual and group levels.
I use such an example because some population groupings have such emotional charge that many readers may have trouble looking at them objectively - in part because they don't read what one is writing, but instead "hear echos" of some past thing that other people have written and are unable to emotionally separate the two. (Not saying you personally, just some humans in general).