VeggieBoards banner
1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Ex-*****
Joined
·
5,391 Posts
That's cool. Maybe this shows that the vegetarian groups's glorious victory in the BBC programme "Test the Nation" a few months ago was no coincidence.

Quote:
But Dr Frankie Phillips, of the British Dietetic Association, said: "It is like the chicken and the egg. Do people become vegetarian because they have a very high IQ or is it just that they tend to be more aware of health issues?"
Does it matter? Both?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
This explains my extraordinary intelligence. I'm amazed the article didn't say anything about a nice disposition or a wonderful personality...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I wouldn't get too excited.

I haven't looked into this at any great depth but it seems to accept that 'meat avoiders' are vegetarians.

"More than 33 percent of the men and women in the study described themselves as vegetarians but said they ate white meat and fish."

This, obviously, renders the study mostly useless. I have a huge problem with meat-eating 'vegetarians'. Don't get me wrong - it's good that there are some animals they are not eating. But they are not vegetarians and they should stop calling themselves that. (Likewise, scholars should stop allowing people to "self-define" themselves as vegetarians. Most of the academic papers I have read do allow too much leeway on this.)

It's entirely objective: if you eat meat, you are not a vegetarian.

Nobody claims to be teetotal because they do not drink bear - but drink vodka, etc - so why should scholars allow such inconsistencies when it comes to diet?

Just over 4 percent were "strict vegetarians" and 2 percent vegans. Well, is that all? If we take 'strict vegetarians' to be ACTUAL vegetarians then obviously we're not able to conclude anything from the study.

It's conclusions should be that meat-avoiders are more intelligent etc - because it isn't actually studying real vegetarians, only fake ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lachry View Post

I wouldn't get too excited.

I haven't looked into this at any great depth but it seems to accept that 'meat avoiders' are vegetarians.

"More than 33 percent of the men and women in the study described themselves as vegetarians but said they ate white meat and fish."

This, obviously, renders the study mostly useless. I have a huge problem with meat-eating 'vegetarians'. Don't get me wrong - it's good that there are some animals they are not eating. But they are not vegetarians and they should stop calling themselves that. (Likewise, scholars should stop allowing people to "self-define" themselves as vegetarians. Most of the academic papers I have read do allow too much leeway on this.)

It's entirely objective: if you eat meat, you are not a vegetarian.

Nobody claims to be teetotal because they do not drink bear - but drink vodka, etc - so why should scholars allow such inconsistencies when it comes to diet?

Just over 4 percent were "strict vegetarians" and 2 percent vegans. Well, is that all? If we take 'strict vegetarians' to be ACTUAL vegetarians then obviously we're not able to conclude anything from the study.

It's conclusions should be that meat-avoiders are more intelligent etc - because it isn't actually studying real vegetarians, only fake ones.
Excellent point. I agree completely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
885 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lachry View Post

I wouldn't get too excited.

I haven't looked into this at any great depth but it seems to accept that 'meat avoiders' are vegetarians.

"More than 33 percent of the men and women in the study described themselves as vegetarians but said they ate white meat and fish."

This, obviously, renders the study mostly useless. I have a huge problem with meat-eating 'vegetarians'. Don't get me wrong - it's good that there are some animals they are not eating. But they are not vegetarians and they should stop calling themselves that. (Likewise, scholars should stop allowing people to "self-define" themselves as vegetarians. Most of the academic papers I have read do allow too much leeway on this.)

It's entirely objective: if you eat meat, you are not a vegetarian.

Nobody claims to be teetotal because they do not drink bear - but drink vodka, etc - so why should scholars allow such inconsistencies when it comes to diet?

Just over 4 percent were "strict vegetarians" and 2 percent vegans. Well, is that all? If we take 'strict vegetarians' to be ACTUAL vegetarians then obviously we're not able to conclude anything from the study.

It's conclusions should be that meat-avoiders are more intelligent etc - because it isn't actually studying real vegetarians, only fake ones.
WHy on earth does this render the study useless? Of the general population that calls themselves vegetarian, you'll find similar numbers.

Obviously if you eat any meat you are not vegetarian. But only a third of the people said they ate chicken or fish - the other 2/3rds probably actually WERE vegetarian. "strict vegetarians" .... who knows what that means..... we've had debates here about that amongst ourselves.

Plus - JUST ACCEPT THE GOOD PRESS!!

Quote:
Liz O'Neill, of the Vegetarian Society, said: "We've always known that vegetarianism is an intelligent, compassionate choice benefiting animals, people and the environment.

"Now we've got the scientific evidence to prove it. Maybe that explains why many meat-reducers are keen to call themselves vegetarians when even they must know that vegetarians don't eat chicken, turkey or fish."
Seriously, how often do you see something this coherent and correct about vegetarianism in print?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,858 Posts
Quote:
But Dr Frankie Phillips, of the British Dietetic Association, said: "It is like the chicken and the egg. Do people become vegetarian because they have a very high IQ or is it just that they tend to be more aware of health issues?"
um...I don't know if I'm reading this wrong or not. It doesn't seem to be anything like "the chicken and the egg" to me.

It would be like "the chicken and the egg" if they were debating whether vegetarianism caused higher IQ or higher IQ caused vegetarianism. Which they are obviously not doing here because the IQ was measured some 20 years before they found out who was vegetarian or not.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by veggielove View Post

Obviously if you eat any meat you are not vegetarian. But only a third of the people said they ate chicken or fish - the other 2/3rds probably actually WERE vegetarian. "strict vegetarians" .... who knows what that means..... we've had debates here about that amongst ourselves.
Veggielove,

The 'vegetarian group' had 366 people in it, of whom only 266 were actually vegetarians, because the other 100 said they ate chicken or fish. What would be interesting is to know how the IQ of the 266 actual vegetarians compared to the IQ of the 7913 actual non-vegetarians. Sticking 100 of the non-vegetarians into the vegetarian group stops us from being able to draw a valid conclusion about vegetarians vs. non-vegetarians. This is known as the error of misclassification.
 

·
Ex-*****
Joined
·
5,391 Posts
It seems you didn't notice this part of the article then:

Quote:
There was no difference in IQ score between strict vegetarians and those who said they were vegetarian but who reported eating fish or chicken.
This is known as the error of not reading things carefully.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Summer View Post

It seems you didn't notice this part of the article then:

This is known as the error of not reading things carefully.
Thanks for pointing out that error! I have to admit I'm a little bleary-eyed this morning. I need to get some sleep.

So then, I guess the conclusion is that for whatever reason, people who either avoid meat, or who are vegetarian have higher IQs.

In any case, I think it would be nice to see more studies of vegetarians and vegans, and in particular to see ones where the number of vegetarians and omnis being compared is more equivalent. In this study there is a very small number of 'vegetarians' being compared to a very large number of non-vegetarians.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I think I wrote a little hastily.

But I don't think people should be drawing conclusions from an article or two. Track down the actual study. None the less,

Indian Summer quotes:

"There was no difference in IQ score between strict vegetarians and those who said they were vegetarian but who reported eating fish or chicken. "

This seems to be incoherent. It only stands in you accept subjective definitions that conflate meat avoidance with vegetarianism. I don't. Meat avoiders are meat eaters (meat eaters are not vegetarians). To paraphrase:

"There was no differnce in IQ between real vegetarians and fake vegetarians" - but if so, then it seems that vegetarianism is not key, rather meat avoidance is, and if that is the case then the headlines are based on the wrong comparison.

I might be missing something. It seems to me that the study causes itself unnecessary problems of interpretation by refusing an objective definition of vegetarianism (eg someone who does not eat meat, poultry, fishes). Those hundred of so people who 'called themselves vegetarians" should have been shown the door. If I was studying celebacy, I wouldn't accept subjects who "only had sex on Tuesdays" etc etc.

I agree though that the publicity is rare and welcome. Whether this study has its weaknesses or not is mostly irrelevant. The benefits of vegetarianism are well known and should receive a lot more press coverage.

--

VeganClaudia, I have a few pdfs that compare a veggie diet. None of them are particularly great. Pm me your email address and I'll send you what I can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lachry View Post

I wouldn't get too excited.

I haven't looked into this at any great depth but it seems to accept that 'meat avoiders' are vegetarians.

"More than 33 percent of the men and women in the study described themselves as vegetarians but said they ate white meat and fish."

This, obviously, renders the study mostly useless.
I don't get why you would find the study useless either.

Quote:
It's conclusions should be that meat-avoiders are more intelligent etc - because it isn't actually studying real vegetarians, only fake ones.
I think this type of attention is great, even if their definitions are a bit off.

eta: i just saw your other post

And i don't think the point of this study is to say that veg*ns are more intelligent because variables such as SES, education, and life style are addressed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
927 Posts
lachry,

I think you're letting your indignation over careless use of words interfere with your understanding of the validity of the study and its results. As has been pointed out, the study did distinguish true vegetarians from "meat avoiders", and found no difference between the two groups. Therefore-

(1) The headline is true; there is a correlation between vegetarianism and IQ.

(2) Additionally, it is also true that "meat avoiders" show the same IQ difference as vegetarians.

Feel free to object about the language encouraging readers to conflate vegetarians and "meat avoiders", but that's more a matter of sloppy reporting rather than bad science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,112 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by lachry View Post

Oh, I'm just cynical

I'm also totally underwhelmed by the IQ scores registered. 105? That's subliterate, surely? :)
I think those ranges are average. maybe not for internet iq tests tho lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
Quote:
There was no difference in IQ score between strict vegetarians and those who said they were vegetarian but who reported eating fish or chicken.
OMG, there are some people who eat neither fish nor chicken? So they're not only vegetarian, like those meat-eaters who don't eat red meat, but they're extra-strict about it, cos they, like, don't eat meat at all. Not eating any meat sounds so extreme to me, it must be the militant fringe of [email protected]@[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
885 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seusomon View Post

lachry,

I think you're letting your indignation over careless use of words interfere with your understanding of the validity of the study and its results. As has been pointed out, the study did distinguish true vegetarians from "meat avoiders", and found no difference between the two groups. Therefore-

(1) The headline is true; there is a correlation between vegetarianism and IQ.

(2) Additionally, it is also true that "meat avoiders" show the same IQ difference as vegetarians.

Feel free to object about the language encouraging readers to conflate vegetarians and "meat avoiders", but that's more a matter of sloppy reporting rather than bad science.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top