David Sklansky, well-known poker theorist, is challenging Christian fundamentalists to a battle of standardized-test-taking skills! (Via Unscrewing the Incrutable and Cynical-C.)
This is an open challenge to any American citizen who passes a lie detector test that I will specify in a moment.
We will both take the math SAT or GRE (aptidude test). Your choice. We will both have only half the normally allotted time to lessen the chances of a perfect score. Lower score pays higher score $50,000.
To qualify you must take a reputable polygraph that proclaims you are truthful when you state that:
1. You are at least 95% sure that Jesus Christ came back from the dead.
AND
2. You are at least 95% sure that adults who die with the specific belief that Jesus probably wasn’t ressurected will not go to heaven.
If you pass the polygraph you can bet me on the SAT or GRE. Again this is open to ANY one of the 300 million Americans.
Also, for those who think I am being disengenuous because I would make the offer to anyone at all, you are wrong. I am now so rusty that at least one in 5000 Americans are favored over me and I would pass on a bet with them. That’s 60,000 people. If the number of people who would pass that polygraph is between 10 and 30 million, which I think it is, that means that at least 2000 of these types of Christians are smart enough to be favored over me. Given such Christian’s intelligence is distributed like other American’s are.
But I’m betting fifty grand they are not. Their beliefs make them relatively stupid (or uninterested in learning). Or only relatively stupid people can come to such beliefs. One or the other. That is my contention. And this challenge might help demonstrate that.
(I’d feel better about Sklansky’s chances if he knew how to spell “resurrected” — good thing he’s sticking to the math test.)
This sounds like an interesting way to get publicity, but the theory behind it is kind of … dumb. It relies on the idea that there is some unitary thing called “intelligence” that correlates in some simple way with both test-taking skills and religious beliefs. If only it were anywhere near that simple.
Assume for the moment that belief in the literal resurrection of Jesus really does indicate a certain amount of credulity, lack of critical thinking, etc. (Obviously not an unproblematic assumption, but let’s grant that it’s true for the sake of argument.) Why in the world would that be inconsistent with being a math prodigy? The human mind is a funny, complicated thing. There are extraordinarily basic mathematical calculations — taking the square root of a fifty-digit number comes to mind — at which a pocket calculator will always do much better than any human being. Yet if you asked the calculator to invent a theory of gravity based on special relativity and the Principle of Equivalence, it wouldn’t get very far.
Some people (and physicists are among the most guilty, for obvious reasons) seem to think that the ability to do math is the quintessential expression of “intelligence,” from which all other reasoning skills flow. If that were true, scientists and mathematicians would make the best poets, statesmen, artists, and conversationalists. And faculty meetings at top-ranked physics departments would be paradigms of reasonable discussion undistorted by petty jealousies and irrational commitments. Suffice it to say, the evidence is running strongly against. (It’s true that physicists are incredibly fashionable and make the best lovers, but that’s a different matter.)
There really are different ways to be smart. Which is not some misguided hyper-egalitarian claim that everyone is equally smart; some people are very smart in lots of ways, while others aren’t especially smart in any. But it’s very common for people to be intelligent in one way and not in others. David Sklansky, for example, is a great poker player and quite mathematically talented. But his understanding of human psychology falls a bit short.
(I should add that Sklansky may in fact know exactly what he is doing, judging that hubris will be enough to lead more people he can beat to accept the challenge than people he will lose to. But from the discussion, it seems as if he really doesn’t think that anyone fitting his criteria will be able to beat him.)
And Vince, let’s not forget Doyle Brunson!
I don’t know about the math GRE, but he’s a Christian who would give Sklansky a run for his money at head’s up Texas Hold’em.
I’m a few years into grad school, and unless things have changed a 960 is extremely high. Most of the top programs have average scores in the 800s.
I’m used to breezing through standardized exams, but the Physics GRE is quite difficult. American physics programs don’t prepare you for this sort of test, which is very time-pressured even when you are skilled in the usual tricks for standardized tests. The story I always heard was that many Asian programs prepare their students better for this sort of test, but maybe some professor could answer this better.
Arun #25 “in this sense, Christianity is an empirical religion” Yes that is interesting, Why only Christianity?
Human beings want to be happy. People often believe what they want to believe, what they prefer to believe. For instance, a brilliant physicist may believe that a certain girl fancies him or that he is he smartest person in his research group despite obvious and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. To many, religious beliefs are a great comfort. These people are of no mind to change such beliefs. Life is short, and you only get one chance.
Most people consider logic a tool rather than a master. How else could Supreme Court Justices marshall such cogent constitutional support for whatever opinion they were predisposed to favor in the first place.
So don’t assume all fundamentalists are stupid – they aren’t. For $50,000, one of them might get really smart really fast.
Brian, I don’t believe all fundamentalists are stupid; see #18, second sentence.
“There are plenty of smart Christians. Like Pope Benedict, or Thomas Aquinas, as two examples.”
1st of all I didn’t mean catholics but christians, like the ones ONLY FOUND in the US. I dont really know the proper name of their affiliation but here in the US we call them Christians.
2nd, who told u that Pope Benedict is smart? Do you think that reject promoting safe sex in the AIDS era is smart?
3rd Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century and he didnt have access to the amount of information that we have nowdays to better judge thignds. And by the way, just b/c the Catholic church says he is a saint you believe? They also said that it is possible for one to ressurrect: a guy called Jesus did 2000 years ago…etc
Chinmaya,
I didn’t write my post as a response to your post.
I was merely suggesting that Slansky may get more than he bargained for if, indeed, his bet ever gets called.
OK Brian, I am still learning how the comments section works.
Pingback: The Marketing Campaign at
almost everyone I knew in college who took the GRE physics got 950-990, but then again I am a foreigner. Amazing thing is – many of those folks didn’t get accepted at US schools, but as I later realized, a lot of americans with much inferior scores did. Something tells me that a “blind” admission policy would result in 90% of grad students being from China, India or former Soviet block, but that’s another topic.
David’s bet is not meaningless and it proves an important point. Critical assessment of facts and scientific reasoning is to a large degree incompatible with belief in leprecons, fairies, Santa Clause and Jesus, among other things.
You can see “reasoning” mode setting in (eventually) with kids and Santa, most figure out that a jolly fat man cannot possibly fit through most chimneys, and most definitely cannot deliver 1 billion presents in a single night. Then how come the same people allow themselves to be brainwashed to a similarly bizzare fairy tale? This may have nothing to do with math abilities, which are more intrinsic, but scientific style of thinking. GRE test in biology, physics or chemistry would probably show a stronger correlation than that in math. Having said that, I know a biologist working in a US DOE government lab who thinks dinosaur fossils are a conspiracy and Earth is only a few thousand years old. I wonder how many people like that work in national labs in France, England, Denmark etc.?
I agree that there are a few very smart people (mathematically) who will be able to beat David, so perhaps it’s a terrible bet, statistically speaking. At the same time, I doubt many people will agree to take David on his offer, so from that point he is safe.
Even though it does look a bit like a pissing contest between christians and atheists, there must be *some* correlation between reasoning ability and belief in supernatural forces, of which religion is a sub-set. For example, Scully could easily beat Mulder in any scientific test. That’s not to say that Mulder wasn’t smarter in some other way.
“1st of all I didn’t mean catholics but christians, like the ones ONLY FOUND in the US. I dont really know the proper name of their affiliation but here in the US we call them Christians.”
Well, I’m sure not all of those types of Christians voted for Bush, and I’m sure you can find a smart one in the bunch. Forgive the confusion, since Catholics form a subset of Christians according to the normal definition of ‘Christian’.
“2nd, who told u that Pope Benedict is smart?”
Have you read any of his books? Sure, they’re books almost exclusively about religion. And you might think that writing about religion for the sake of religion is the same as writing B.S. And I would say that if the good poets throughout history are “smart”, then someone writing brilliant books on religion should also be labelled as “smart”. Professors are smart, right? Well, the Pope used to be a Professor. So there you go.
“Do you think that reject promoting safe sex in the AIDS era is smart?”
There’s a difference between promoting something that may or may not be smart and being smart. It may or may not be a smart move to promote safe sex in the AIDS era, but all the evidence, taken as a whole points to him being smart.
Sorry for all this off-topic discussion.
“3rd Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century and he didnt have access to the amount of information that we have nowdays to better judge thignds. And by the way, just b/c the Catholic church says he is a saint you believe? They also said that it is possible for one to ressurrect: a guy called Jesus did 2000 years ago…etc”
Who said anything about sainthood? I just called the guy smart, and if you had read anything that he had written, you’d think he was pretty smart too.
“David’s bet is not meaningless and it proves an important point. Critical assessment of facts and scientific reasoning is to a large degree incompatible with belief in leprecons, fairies, Santa Clause and Jesus, among other things.”
Why is it incompatible with belief in Jesus. Jesus was a man. So was Socrates. We believe Socrates existed. Why not Jesus? Sure, there are no scientific facts establishing that Jesus rose from the dead, so belief in that is okay since it can’t really be falsified. There also aren’t any scientific facts establishing the existence of tiny 1d strings, or supersymmetry (not yet, at least).
“Even though it does look a bit like a pissing contest between christians and atheists, there must be *some* correlation between reasoning ability and belief in supernatural forces, of which religion is a sub-set. For example, Scully could easily beat Mulder in any scientific test. That’s not to say that Mulder wasn’t smarter in some other way.”
But Mulder went to Oxford. Surely that means he’s a smart guy. Plus, he was able to formulate brilliant theories about cases, most of which ended up being true. Also, in that episode where he’s asked to name the man who had his apartment monitored, he named the Section Chief and not Skinner! Now that’s smart.
I’d like to send this link to Dr. Chuck Pearson. Anyone have his contact details?
Regarding the point “Ponderer of Things” makes in 35, it is absolutely true that (at least some top) US graduate schools in physics admit domestic students with lower GRE physics scores than rejected non-citizens, but that isn’t evidence that weaker students are being admitted: graduate admissions committees consider many factors other than subject GREs. Admitted domestic students typically have better general GRE scores, and more research experience, as well as reference letters that are easier to calibrate. And experience shows that GRE subject scores alone are a pretty poor predictor of long term success, particularly in experimental physics, at least once a certain minimum is reached. As someone who maintained a perfect scoring record in math on standardized tests from the PSAT and SAT through the GRE, I’d be among the first to wish that blind score-based admissions made sense.
The bet itself would be crazy if the dollars involved weren’t so high. I’ve known (e.g., through the math olympiads) a number of young kids who could ace SAT or GRE type tests but didn’t have the maturity to make religious judgments independent of their parents. I’m sure he’d lose a $20 wager open to all ages, though he might win a $20 wager against fundamentalists over, say, 30 years old.
I am sure Isaac Newton would have passed the lie detector proclaiming his religious belief. Does any body wanna bet 50k the good old Isac wouldnt make David look stupid in any math test he would come out with?
Isaac wouldnt be the only one indeed…
Hmm. I know a few friends back home who believe in 1+2, and will totally kill the SAT math test.
/me rubs hand conspiratorially.
Just for the record Sean –
In Particle Physics & Cosmology
What is the difference between
Re-sur-rection & Re-in-Car-Nation ??
I’ll bet anyone $50k I’ll beat them in a game of
Russian Roulette.
Parse that.
To Garbage and others who dredge up Newton, St Thomas Aquinas and other historical figures.
You are missing the point. Sklansky’s point is that these kind of beliefs belong in the past now that we have the benefit of modern science to give us better and more sophisticated explanations. If anything, current trends in religious thinking are getting less sophisticated with time.
These historical figures although religious at the time were very modern thinkers and up to date in the cosmology of their times. I find it hard to believe that a 21st Century Newton with knowledge of particle physics would still be interested in alchemy, for example.
Furthermore, Garbage, I will take you up on your wager and bet on Sklansky on the math test. It be interesting to see how Newton tackled questions involving complex numbers, for example, where many of the basic results were established decades after his death. 😉
Garbage, Charles, just for the record I was not trying to insult Newton or anyone my point was very different…One of my math icons Srinivasa Ramanujan, for example, was also quite literal in his beliefs.
The guy is crazy to actually attempt this, I knew several devout christians who scored perfectly on the SAT, and became physicists who likely had high GRE scores. In fact people who graduated from xtian schools often had pretty strong SAT scores for whatever reason.
There is no correlation with affinity for religion and smarts on a test, and I say that as an adamant atheist. Take Abdus Salam, a devout muslim, as a great example. There have also been countless nobel laureates who were practising Jews and xtians.
Worse, the reliance on a polygraph ;x That machine last I checked is widely ridiculed as unscientific. Actually now that I think about it, I had a very high physics GRE score… Hmmm!
And I’d be more comfortable with Sean’s analysis, if he knew how to spell “inscrutable”.
In my opinion, the subject GRE tests seem to be an even weaker indicator of intelligence, but more about the knowledge of the field. Intelligence has very little to do with standardized tests, but how much you know of the subject material. begin tested. In regards to the so called “aptitude” tests like the SAT or GRE math- maybe person A can potentially use Pythagorean’s theorem faster than person B, but person B actually knows what it is.
I agree with the ideas in this post, and find the line about physicist being very fashionable and good lovers to be hilarious!
On the other hand, if this dude is confident that he can top-score every time, then he has little to lose. Although as has already been pointed out, the requirement for a “reputable polygraph” pretty much renders the whole thing academic.
RE: advanced mathematics, Professor Morris Kline describes the situation after 1911, when Einstein began to search for more sophisticated mathematics to build gravitation into space-time geometry:
‘Up to this time Einstein had used only the simplest mathematical tools and had even been suspicious of the need for “higher mathematics”, which he thought was often introduced to dumbfound the reader. However, to make progress on his problem he discussed it in Prague with a colleague, the mathematician Georg Pick, who called his attention to the mathematical theory of Ricci and Levi-Civita. In Zurich Einstein found a friend, Marcel Grossmann (1878-1936), who helped him learn the theory; and with this as a basis, he succeeded in formulating the general theory of relativity.’ (M. Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1990, vol. 3, p. 1131.)
It’s weird to see in the declassified U.S. Government files on Einstein collected at the request of J.E. Hoover, Director of the FBI, that both Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita, inventors of the “absolute differential calculus” (named “tensors” by Einstein fifteen years later) used to formulate general relativity, were at least until 1915 dismissive of Einstein’s work (see p64 dated 10 Feb 1950 on the first PDF download at the FBI page http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/einstein.htm for downloads of 1,427 pages of reports on Einstein (mainly from the security perspective because the FBI site says: “An investigation was conducted by the FBI regarding the famous physicist because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. Einstein was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four communist fronts between 1937 and 1954. He also served as honorary chairman for three communist organizations.”)
Prof. Thomas Jefferson See: “Einstein is neither astronomer, mathematician nor physicist. He is a confusionist. … The theory that aether does not exist, and that gravity is not a force, but a property of space can only be described as a crazy vagary, a disgrace to our age.”
… a technical analysis of the mathematical and philosophical fallacies of Einstein shows the following noted mathematics as critics:
M. Picard, Henry Poincare [who had his own, rather different, version of relativity published in 1904, before Einstein, and produced the same mathematical results from a different set of postulates], G. Darboux, M. Paul Painleve, Le Roux, and the Italians Ricci and Levi Civita who did most to develop the mathematics used by the Relativists …
General relativity is mathematically correct for the physics it emcompasses, since its modification to Newtonian physics is based on a correction forced by the need to make the divergence of the mass-energy tensor zero, for energy conservation. It isn’t speculative, so any errors come from omissions of details. It is based on observed facts like energy conservation, and isn’t a guess, apart from the cosmological constant (added in 1917) or speculations about what Yang-Mills “graviton” radiation is behind the curvature.
If mathematical skills were intelligence, Ricci and Levi-Civita would have discovered general relativity, not Einstein. Levi-Civita only corresponded fruitfully with Einstein from 1915-1917 concerning “the variational formulation of the gravitational field equations and their covariance properties, and the definition of the gravitational energy and the existence of gravitational waves.” – http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Levi-Civita.html