[HN Gopher] 20Y study finds little evidence religiosity leads to... ___________________________________________________________________ 20Y study finds little evidence religiosity leads to greater life satisfaction Author : giuliomagnifico Score : 73 points Date : 2021-10-23 18:53 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.psypost.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.psypost.org) | kirse wrote: | On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who | need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the | righteous, but sinners." -Mark 2:17 | pessimizer wrote: | Is "life satisfaction" a virtue? Are better lives distributed | to better people? | mgamache wrote: | "It is impossible to manufacture or imitate love". - Horace | Slughorn, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince | chippy wrote: | There was an interesting little snippet I heard the other day, it | was something like "the idea that Religions are things to do that | improve ones life puts it in the self-help section of the | bookshop." The answer to that I'm more foggy on but its something | like "religion is something we are called to do, it's not a shelf | in a bookstore or something to be bought into. It's the entire | bookstore and it's the city the store is in." | srcreigh wrote: | The author has done other studies for different questions. | | https://mohsenjoshanloo.weebly.com/publications.html | mensetmanusman wrote: | " Meta-analyses have pointed to a positive relationship between | religiosity and a person's evaluation of their life, suggesting | that people who are more religious tend to feel better about | their lives. But researcher Mohsen Joshanloo remarks that these | studies have not offered strong evidence of a causal relationship | between the two variables. " | | E.g. maybe happy people are more likely to be religious, but like | with most social science, there is no way to test this with the | scientific method because of ethical reasons. | | My favorite stat is that weekly church goers report the highest | satisfaction in their sex lives. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | > My favorite stat is that weekly church goers report the | highest satisfaction in their sex lives. | | Going by kid-count I'd wager we're talking Catholics and | Mormons. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > My favorite stat is that weekly church goers report the | highest satisfaction in their sex lives. | | That's really interesting. Is there more data? Any differences | between the sexes? Age? | User23 wrote: | Does anyone know what the study author actually means by | religiosity? I couldn't find the "supplementary material," just a | three page paper that shows some tables. Without knowing what the | term means in this context it's hard to interpret the finding. | Are they lumping together Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, | Hindus, Mormons, and every other faith tradition present in the | USA in any quantity together? I'd be willing to bet that even | within one of those religions you might find wildly different | results. | | For example Latin Mass attending Catholics who honestly try to | live the Church's teachings fully may report a different | happiness level than casual Catholics who show up to Church | occasionally and don't really live the life that the Church | teaches them to. | | It's fair to differentiate between authentically lived religion | and more hollow performative religion. | curiousgal wrote: | Perfect example of why I firmly believe psychology research is | trash. | | Studied population: 4167 American adults. | | Conclusion: All religions are bad. | noobermin wrote: | N=4167 for a longitudinal study is fantastic, actually. | curiousgal wrote: | For a medical study sure, for a subjective field where | society and culture play a major role, even N=1e7 of | individuals _living in the same country_ wouldn 't be enough | to draw a conclusion on the _entire_ human population. | jawns wrote: | I am a member of a religious group whose doctrine, practices, | culture, etc. are very different from the doctrine, practices, | and culture of other religious groups. Some people who identify | as religious are monotheists, others polytheists, others | pantheists, and still others agnostics or even atheists. (Yup, | there is such a thing as Christian atheism.) | | So I always find it strange when 'religiosity' is used as a | catch-all personality trait and everyone who identifies as | religious is lumped together. | | I haven't been able to look at the specific six-question set used | in the study to measure religiosity, but something tells me that | with only six questions, we can ascertain the impact of a | person's particular religious beliefs and practices on their life | in only the vaguest way. | dash2 wrote: | Not sure I like the easy assumption here that "panel study" = | causality. Suppose I get happier. Then I go to church more. The | use of some complicated-ass Granger-causality-style technique | also makes me trust it less. | | This natural experiment looks more interesting, although it | exploits just a temporary shock (variation in the length of | Ramdan): | | https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/130/2/615/2330341?login... | | "We study the economic effects of religious practices in the | context of the observance of Ramadan fasting, one of the central | tenets of Islam. To establish causality, we exploit variation in | the length of daily fasting due to the interaction between the | rotating Islamic calendar and a country's latitude. We report two | key, quantitatively meaningful results: (i) longer Ramadan | fasting has a negative effect on output growth in Muslim | countries, and (ii) it increases subjective well-being among | Muslims. We find evidence that these patterns are consistent with | a standard club good explanation for the emergence of costly | religious practices: increased strictness of fasting screens out | the less committed members, while the more committed respond with | an increase in their relative levels of participation." | noobermin wrote: | Did I misread the article? They just found that it was | uncorrelated for individuals who became religious during the | study (that is, temporally there is no effect) but positively | correlated _between_ people, and neither of those shows | causality. For the temporal result, it at least negated it | being causal. | nassimsoftware wrote: | I find this study problematic because it fails to take into | account that life satisfaction is highly dependent on the exact | moment when the respondents answers the questionnaire even if 10 | years apart. | | If I had a bad day and it so happened that it was the day where I | was supposed to fill in a form on my life satisfaction, my answer | would probably be very biased regardless if I was religious or | not. | | It also fails to take into account that not all religions are | based on happiness. Meaning that life satisfaction in this world | is not the be all and all. | | An example is Islam. In Islam this worldly life is considered as | a test. So you're going to be tested with hardship, afflictions | and so on. There is also the concept of this being cyclical. | After hardship comes ease. If you keep steady while you're being | tested you'll be rewarded with paradise or/and a period of ease | in this life. | | Otherwise if you disobey Allah's commandements and die upon | disbelief (You did not repent sincerely while you were still | alive.) you'll likely go to hell. | | Here it would be understandable to the believer that their life | will not be all roses so there life satisfaction may dip at any | point. | mistrial9 wrote: | next up - two thousand year study shows religion is not going | away. signed - religious person | Yoric wrote: | I know a few other religions with prior art on the topic :) | Grimm1 wrote: | Honestly, and completely anecdotally, having been raised Catholic | I would expect it to result in quite the opposite when so much of | the doctrine is based on guilt. That said before anyone jumps on | me, also anecdotally, I haven't found any greater life | satisfaction by not being religious either. You do you. | | The article says the study suggests there's not a really strong | causal relationship in either way which surprises me a little but | yeah I can see it given the experience. | | And If I were to find religion suddenly again now I imagine it | may only increase life satisfaction based on the fact I have no | real community at the moment and that I think is probably a more | interesting study. | | How much has external community (i.e. not close friends, partners | and families) breakdown occurred over the last 40 years and what | is the effect on our life satisfaction? My grandfather was a part | of a bunch of men's clubs etc last I checked most of those are | floundering now. | aaron695 wrote: | Blue zone theory suggests religion helps people live longer. | | Which is the same as life satisfaction. (If you think people who | live longer are unhappy or blobs stuck in a bed that's your | bizarre world) | | Blue Zone theory isn't a great theory, but it's very logical. Ie. | Religious people have support later in life, it's a life long | hobby anyone can do etc etc. | | This 'meta study' of only 4000 is poorly written. I'll assume | it's because they are Korean and not because in science poorly | written Journal Articles do better. | | You can't read much from this study. | | Religiosity means little. | | They mention in the study they have no idea about attendance for | instance which is what matters. | | It's not about how strongly you believe. More the fact to use the | support structure when needed. | m0zg wrote: | Having an established social circle leads to greater life | satisfaction - you don't need a study to know that. And that's | the main thing churches provide. | dustingetz wrote: | The point of religion is to solve civilization-scale game theory | coordination dilemmas. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a mutually | beneficial metastable equilibrium but is only stable to the | extent that it is a universally adopted principle. A lot of | modern tragedies like climate change can be tackled in this way | if we can establish universal shared values that apply to all | people independent of nationality, status and in particular, | education. It needs to be comprehensible to all 7 billion people | for them to adopt it, including areas of the world with low | literacy. | xabotage wrote: | It's not the point of religion, it's a side-effect. While | religion is a remarkably effective control/coercion tool, there | are more ethical ways to establish universal shared values. | "Thou Shalt Not Kill" isn't exactly inspirational coming from a | book filled with god-sanctioned rape, incest, genocide, and | infanticide. People didn't adopt that principle because | religion told them to, they adopted it because it allowed them | to outcompete the primitive societies that didn't. | Darmody wrote: | People didn't adopt that principle because religion told them | to, they adopted it because it allowed them to outcompete the | primitive societies that didn't. | | But the divine nature of mankind makes that commandment more | powerful because, one, you're killing God's creation and, | two, it directly comes from God. It is not a simple "yeah, | lets agree on that". | xabotage wrote: | In the end it's just falsely attributing divinity to pro- | social human programming developed over millennia of | natural selection. Religion came much later than pro-social | behavior, and in fact it more resembles "let's agree on | that": When it serves you, quote the bible verses that | forbid killing, and when it serves you, quote the verses | that justify killing indiscriminately. | [deleted] | [deleted] | netizen-936824 wrote: | >"The point of religion is..." | | Citation please | dustingetz wrote: | Myerson, Roger B. 2009. "Learning from Schelling's Strategy | of Conflict." Journal of Economic Literature, 47 (4): | 1109-25. | http://home.uchicago.edu/~rmyerson/research/stratofc.pdf | | "To focus attention on one equilibrium with no higher appeal, | it would be best to consult the highest possible authority. | If the players share a cultural understanding that certain | unpredictable processes may be used by the fundamental divine | spirit of the universe to answer questions, and that this | divinity cannot be bothered about the same question more than | once, then a recommendation that is based on such a sacred | randomization can serve as a focal coordination device that | cannot be appealed to any higher arbitrator. Then the | oracle's recommendations can be self-enforcing, without any | further intervention by the divine spirit, provided that the | recommendations to the players form an equilibrium. Thus the | focal-point effect can admit a socially significant role for | oracles and divination, as an effective foundation for social | coordination. Indeed, when we look for effective focal | factors, what can command people's attention more than the | overall pattern of the whole universe? This divine pattern | can serve as a focal determinant, however, only when players | have a shared understanding about it can be interpreted into | a selection among the set of Nash equilibria of their game. | | ... | | "In any society, it is vital to maintain a broad general | agreement about who has legitimate authority in any | situation. Thus, from our earlier remarks about the focal | power of the divine, we can see why societies may find it | useful or even essential to call for frequent testimony that | the local system of rules and authority is compatible with | the divine pattern of the universe. Although coordination | within a society can be improved by such belief in the | universal nature of its principles of justice and legitimate | authority, such universalization of local law and authority | makes it harder for people in one society to recognize the | different forms of justice and authority in other societies | (see Myerson, 2006). That is, the same forces that help | people to achieve consistent coordinated expectations in a | successful society can become forces for inconsistency of | expectations across societies in international relations. | Indeed, in international conflicts throughout history, people | on each side have regularly failed to understand the other | side's perception of justice in their conflict. | | ... | | "The focal-point effect may even offer a perspective on some | ideas of theology, not about the nature of the divine, but | about how societies use the divine. The focal-point effect is | about environmental parameters that attract people's | attention to one of many equilibria, and no aspect of our | environment has a stronger claim on our attention than the | divine pattern of the entire universe. Thus, coordination in | a society can be strengthened when it culturally portrays | local forms of law and authority as derived from universal | divine principles." | inter_netuser wrote: | Excellent demonstration of the point of the peer-review | religion. | LatteLazy wrote: | Except that problem is already solved by a bunch of things like | empathy and reputation. | | The point of religion is to solve civilisation wide | coordination dilemmas like war. How do you get people to kill | and die for strangers? | | Religion's purpose is to get people to do horrible things not | to behave nicely. It's used for wars mostly (plus genocides | etc). | | That's why we no longer need it. If we were fighting a ground | war against a dangerous invading force it would be socially | useful. But we're not. | | This is also why religion has only flourished in places with | exactly those issues (Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine recently). | | Unless the plan for solving climate change is to convince x% of | people to kill themselves, religion won't help with that any | more than it helps with poverty or crime. | version_five wrote: | I think your analysis is spot on. With respect to the last | part though: | | > Unless the plan for solving climate change is to convince | x% of people to kill themselves, religion won't help with | that any more than it helps with poverty or crime. | | Climate religion basically is telling people they need to go | without the comforts of modern society (and generally live in | some sort of centrally controlled societal construct that | minimizes individual rights) in the name of some eternal | paradise. It's not quite as severe as sending people to their | deaths, but it's the same idea of convincing people to act | against their own interests (and to let the priests continue | to do what they want in the name of spreading the word) in | order to fulfill some divine purpose. | | (I should add as a sibling post did, I believe there are many | positive points to religion as well, I'm responding to your | post that essentially addresses religion as a coercion (sp?) | mechanism | agumonkey wrote: | you're reducing religion to its dark spots, and I'm not | religious.. | | we all have existential crysis, deep fear, doubts, dilemmas. | These questions are also in religion, now religion was | probably a huge pile of everything from existence, to social | life, morality, sexuality and family and yeah converting / | conquering other people or other faiths. | | You don't go to church to gather weapons but to marry, | celebrate birth and grieve death. | causi wrote: | Interesting. I wonder how you square that with results from "are | you happy?" surveys comparing the religious and irreligious. | onion2k wrote: | Believing you are happy and actually being happy are different | things. Religious people believe that they're happier than | other people, but they're not. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | >Believing you are happy and actually being happy are | different things | | Even if that were true, the two likely wouldn't be | distinguishable in any meaningful way. | onion2k wrote: | Yes they would. If you ask people if they're happy they'll | say yes. If you actually measure it by observing what | people do they'll exhibit behavior that shows they're not | actually happy. | | Self-delusion is a well researched topic. There are many | studies. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | > If you actually measure it by observing what people do | they'll exhibit behavior that shows they're not actually | happy. | | The best part of this notion is the inverse where | miserable people are doing happy people things. | [deleted] | inter_netuser wrote: | link? is that in the study? | xabotage wrote: | Survivorship bias. Especially for high-demand religions, | answering "no" means admitting the church you make so many | sacrifices for does absolutely nothing. This leaves those who | are either too afraid to confront the cognitive dissonance or | who were already happy in the first place. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | > Especially for high-demand religions, answering "no" means | admitting the church you make so many sacrifices for does | absolutely nothing. | | I think there's a chasm or 10 between _declining a | responsibility_ and _denouncing your faith_. | azinman2 wrote: | Where do you get the premise of religion being a happier | life? | [deleted] | xabotage wrote: | I never said it was, I'm not sure why you think I did. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | Your answer of "survivorship bias" hints that you are | assuming the parent's "are you happy" is a yes. | | Assuming for argument's sake, that is. | xabotage wrote: | The post title implies religiosity != happiness, the | parent implied other results might differ, my comment was | a response to that possibility, for the sake of argument | as you said. | WarOnPrivacy wrote: | For most faithful, the answer would be 'experience'. People | happy in their faith tend to stay. Those who aren't tend to | leave eventually. | dash2 wrote: | Reverse causality or unobserved confounds. Maybe happy people | are more likely to become or stay religious. Maybe living in an | area with strong community makes you happier and you also get | dragged along to church (but the two do not influence each | other). ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-23 23:01 UTC)