Religious kids are harsher and less generous than atheist ones, study says

[ibx 2]

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)01167-7

Quote

The Negative Association between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism across the World

•Family religious identification decreases children’s altruistic behaviors
•Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to injustices and empathy
•Children from religious households are harsher in their punitive tendencies

Religion makes you selfish and absolutist who would have thought?

[Coreeece 2]

ibx

Religious kids are harsher and less generous than atheist ones, study says

Actually the study doesn't say much about atheists at all.

From Study:

Quote

Parental religious identification was then coded into Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism, agnostic, spiritual, multi-theistic, other, and no answer. From the frequency distributions, three large groupings were established: Christians, Muslims, and not religious.

In our sample,
23.9% of households identified as Christian (n = 280),
43% as Muslim (n = 510),
27.6% as not religious (n = 323),
2.5% as Jewish (n = 29),
1.6% as Buddhist (n = 18),
0.4% as Hindu (n = 5),
0.2% as agnostic (n = 3),
and 0.5% as other (n = 6).

To further investigate these effects within specific religions, three large groupings were established: Christian, Muslim, and not religious; children from other religious households did not reach a large enough sample size to be included in additional analyses.

So given the above, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus were not included because of small sample sizes. Were the Agnostics excluded as well for having an even smaller sample size - and why weren't they included with the 27.6% of the sample size that was non-religious?

How did they determine the non-religious? Was it just a conglomerate of those who were atheists, spiritual, multi-theistic, and those who chose "other" or refused to answer?

They don't even give the sample size of each of those groups, so how do you know if there were any atheists to begin with?

Do you really believe that the non-religious in the study were all atheists and outnumbered the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and agnostics combined?

It should also be noted that the study does make a distinction between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists but then they lump them all together. Of course Islamic extremists are going to be less altruistic and more punitive thus skewing the results - duh.

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[rehmwa 2]

From a very narrow viewpoint, this is perfect.

As a non-religious person, I can't really tell those 'normals' that are religious (they don't wear a sign or have a tattoo or an extra arm or anything).

So, "religious" means "fundamentalist, in your face, right out there, fanatic". Like terrorists, evangelicals, GW environmentalists, political activists, and Star Trek NG fans.

so, yeah, of course they are harsh and judgmental - extremists always are.

everyone else - religious or not, really don't register, since it's a personal thing, that also makes sense



Edit: I find it more interesting that studies and articles that wallow in stereotypes are on a severe increase. It's likely a clear sign of societal narcissism.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[grantunderland 0]

But that isn't how the religions were identified. They were chosen for a study and had to declare their religion. You could argue a few answered not religious even though they were, but I doubt many, if any, did just that.

And I dunno, if I were an atheist social psychologist or sociologist, I might get sick of being called names and looked down upon by the religious and do a study on it.

And 1 study by itself doesn't show much, just some connections between a few points for 1170 children. A few more studies along the same lines with even larger sample sizes would be more interesting to me.

[jclalor 12]

Coreeece

***Religious kids are harsher and less generous than atheist ones, study says

Actually the study doesn't say much about atheists at all.

From Study:

Quote

Parental religious identification was then coded into Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism, agnostic, spiritual, multi-theistic, other, and no answer. From the frequency distributions, three large groupings were established: Christians, Muslims, and not religious.

In our sample,
23.9% of households identified as Christian (n = 280),
43% as Muslim (n = 510),
27.6% as not religious (n = 323),
2.5% as Jewish (n = 29),
1.6% as Buddhist (n = 18),
0.4% as Hindu (n = 5),
0.2% as agnostic (n = 3),
and 0.5% as other (n = 6).

To further investigate these effects within specific religions, three large groupings were established: Christian, Muslim, and not religious; children from other religious households did not reach a large enough sample size to be included in additional analyses.

So given the above, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus were not included because of small sample sizes. Were the Agnostics excluded as well for having an even smaller sample size - and why weren't they included with the 27.6% of the sample size that was non-religious?

How did they determine the non-religious? Was it just a conglomerate of those who were atheists, spiritual, multi-theistic, and those who chose "other" or refused to answer?

They don't even give the sample size of each of those groups, so how do you know if there were any atheists to begin with?

Do you really believe that the non-religious in the study were all atheists and outnumbered the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and agnostics combined?

It should also be noted that the study does make a distinction between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists but then they lump them all together. Of course Islamic extremists are going to be less altruistic and more punitive thus skewing the results - duh.

Why do you have to go and ruin the fun?

[billvon 3,118]

>Family religious identification decreases children’s altruistic behaviors
>Religiousness predicts parent-reported child sensitivity to injustices and empathy
>Children from religious households are harsher in their punitive tendencies

That was my experience based on being in both public schools and catholic schools. I'd also add that the more outwardly devout, the more likely that they tended to be "loose."

[cvfd1399 0]

My experience was that kids who went to church benefited from at least one day out of the week having to get dressed up and properly behave in front of a group of people.

They were generally nicer and more giving kids.

The ones that did not go to church were more wild and unsocialized generally.

A church family helps foster connections in the community which leads to others having a helping hand raising kids. If we went down the street it was a good chance someone knew who we were and we knew to not act up or be bad. Other non church going kids would ride their bikes to other neighborhoods and start fights at basketball games or steal stuff from others clubhouses.

[billvon 3,118]

>My experience was that kids who went to church benefited from at least one
>day out of the week having to get dressed up and properly behave in front of a
>group of people.

My experience was that ANY congregation of people (via a club, the Boy Scouts, a sport, a church, a temple) had the same effect - requiring kids to behave themselves in a crowd of people. Nothing unique about a church in that respect.

One of the most interesting kids in my high school class was Uneal. He was a Hindu. Apparently my high school had to admit some percentage of non-Catholic kids to get some level of state funding, so they always admitted that percentage and no more. That year that meant four non-Catholic students. Uneal was under no illusions that he was anything other than a quota-filler, but he took advantage of it, got a good education (did really well in class) and graduated with us. He wasn't allowed to skip mass but he wasn't required to actually participate. His perspective as an outsider was an eye-opener to me; until that time I had only really known Christian and Jewish kids.

[rehmwa 2]

cvfd1399

My experience was that kids who went to church benefited from at least one day out of the week having to get dressed up and properly behave in front of a group of people.

They were generally nicer and more giving kids.

The ones that did not go to church were more wild and unsocialized generally.

A church family helps foster connections in the community which leads to others having a helping hand raising kids. If we went down the street it was a good chance someone knew who we were and we knew to not act up or be bad. Other non church going kids would ride their bikes to other neighborhoods and start fights at basketball games or steal stuff from others clubhouses.

This reads like a liberal talking about their "vision" of utopia - "It must be this way because that's how I view it working"


My experience with religious kids:

1 - religious kids with religious parents that were judgmental and self righteous assholes that used their religion as a way to try and judge others and feel superior - tended to be judgmental and self righteous asshole kids that tended judge others and feel superior

2 - religious kids with parents that quietly held their sincere beliefs to heart and practiced them as intended in a kind and caring way - tended to......., well, you get the idea

actually, ditto for the non-religious



I find it funny to see "religious community" and child bearing and how no one in those groups flinches at the obvious - "it takes a village" parallel. it's crap - community of whatever flavor is fine (as long as it doesn't involve self mutilation, or excessive watching of McGyver episodes) , but it's not a replacement or improvement over just having good parents.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

As a non-religious person, I can't really tell those 'normals' that are religious (they don't wear a sign or have a tattoo or an extra arm or anything).

What does that have to do with it?

Quote

So, "religious" means "fundamentalist, in your face, right out there, fanatic". Like terrorists, evangelicals, GW environmentalists, political activists, and Star Trek NG fans.

so, yeah, of course they are harsh and judgmental - extremists always are.

Follows from an invalid premise.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?