5 ms·

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28926931/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28926931/ > Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher

by pitched 23d ago

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28926931/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28926931/ > Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level I think it’s good to question these things but the people who go full black/white on everything is where that whole movement died. Saying something strong like “eating any meat” will generally not win over hackers. But “we won’t bring cows to Mars” might work better.

colordrops 23d ago
I wonder how many of these "self-reported" vegans were true ethical vegans vs instgram influencer, "I eat chicken once a week" vegans. Also, what's your point? Is there a proven direct correlation between ethics/morals and educational level? And even if there were, does that imply that this less educated group is as a whole completely wrong? And are you implying that ethics and morals were even objective and measureable? I mean, completely no idea what you are getting at here.
- pitched 23d ago
  The linked study does show that correlation. But I personally believe it’s more of a second-order effect. Vegetarianism selects for openness and analytical/reflective thinking but the extra step to veganism selects for absolutism/purity and rigid category-based thinking. Reflective thinking and openness are definitely correlated to IQ so I believe the result in the article. The point here is to know your audience. The people on this site are perfectly primed to respond well to a vegetarian/environmental point of view.
  - suriyaG 23d ago
    > Vegetarianism selects for openness and analytical/reflective thinking but the extra step to veganism selects for absolutism/purity I don't follow how you conclude this at all. there is nothing to indicate this is the case.
    - deleted 23d ago
      [deleted]
    - dudefeliciano 23d ago
      Vegetarianism, in Europe at least, requires one to be open to a different diet than what one is used to, usually going against social and cultural norms due to a personal conviction that is reached by analysis and reflection, while veganism brings that to the extreme
      - colordrops 23d ago
        Everyone has different ethical frameworks. The label of "extreme" is arbitrary, not objective. I'm sure you would never rape or murder someone. Does that make you an extremist? You don't think it's OK to occasionally rape and murder people right? Vegans' ethical framework is that the murder of animals is unacceptable, and so there is no middle ground. That's not extremism, it's a different framework. To frame it as a spectrum is a misunderstanding.
        constantius 22d ago
        Ah you said it much better than I did, I'll link your comment.
        dudefeliciano 22d ago
        Pretty sure vegetarians and vegans both are against the killing of animals, so don't know what you are trying to argue. And yes it is very much a spectrum that (very roughly, and not exclusively) goes from: cannibalism -> eating animals -> eating animal derived products -> eating only vegetables and fruit -> eating only vegetable and fruit that fell to the ground without being picked. And I find it ironic in that you are kind of proving the point, by painting it as a black and white issue. This is what the "extremism" means to me. Another form of that spectrum could be: Endangered species -> wild animals -> farmed animals. Do you think it would be as wrong to kill the last specimens of an animal that is about to go extinct as it would be to kill an animal that has been bred over thousands of years and could probably not survive in the wild on its own? While i am against all killing, when presented with this choice the answer is pretty clear to me. And you even made a similar distinction yourself in another comment here: >I hope people say the same about all animals, but especially mammals. So again, not sure what you are trying to argue.
  - constantius 22d ago
    You have a conclusion that you want to defend and some biases you're unaware of, so you're also not aware how tortured this argument sounds. Pick some other topic. For example: are people who thinkthat slavery is inherently and always wrong just stupid extremists, compared to people who accept that 'some' slavery is fine? I feel like you're the type to walk around with calipers. Edit: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49436484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49436484 for a better written argument.
suriyaG 23d ago
> Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level this is such a... wrong conclusion to make from the study. the study has found a correlation and by no means is it a causation. there are so many cultural, societal reasons for this to be the case. (eg. in india, upper caste people are usually vegetarians who generally have more access to education.)
- blacksmith_tb 23d ago
  Except that the study is from France?
  - suriyaG 23d ago
    it was an example of a correlation != causation the parent comment was basically creating a causational logic for why vegetarians are more likely to be "smart"-er. which is not true.
    - rendall 23d ago
      > > Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level > this is such a... wrong conclusion to make from the study. the study has found a correlation and by no means is it a causation. I'm not seeing any assertion of causation from that quote.
- kakacik 23d ago
  Dude, most of India are vegetarians. If you have seen the sanitary conditions for storing meat (or at least in 2008/2010 when I backpacked around the country), you would also become one. I certainly did. Curries with meat were more expensive than vegetable ones in every dhaba. The bonus of not having to pick tiny pieces of meat from heap of chicken bones was a nice bonus (since touching food with hands was generally a very bad idea, sanitizer or not).
  - jdkdb76 23d ago

by pitched 23d ago

colordrops 23d ago

I wonder how many of these "self-reported" vegans were true ethical vegans vs instgram influencer, "I eat chicken once a week" vegans. Also, what's your point? Is there a proven direct correlation between ethics/morals and educational level? And even if there were, does that imply that this less educated group is as a whole completely wrong? And are you implying that ethics and morals were even objective and measureable? I mean, completely no idea what you are getting at here.

pitched 23d ago
The linked study does show that correlation. But I personally believe it’s more of a second-order effect. Vegetarianism selects for openness and analytical/reflective thinking but the extra step to veganism selects for absolutism/purity and rigid category-based thinking. Reflective thinking and openness are definitely correlated to IQ so I believe the result in the article. The point here is to know your audience. The people on this site are perfectly primed to respond well to a vegetarian/environmental point of view.
- suriyaG 23d ago
  > Vegetarianism selects for openness and analytical/reflective thinking but the extra step to veganism selects for absolutism/purity I don't follow how you conclude this at all. there is nothing to indicate this is the case.
  - deleted 23d ago
    [deleted]
  - dudefeliciano 23d ago
    Vegetarianism, in Europe at least, requires one to be open to a different diet than what one is used to, usually going against social and cultural norms due to a personal conviction that is reached by analysis and reflection, while veganism brings that to the extreme
    - colordrops 23d ago
      Everyone has different ethical frameworks. The label of "extreme" is arbitrary, not objective. I'm sure you would never rape or murder someone. Does that make you an extremist? You don't think it's OK to occasionally rape and murder people right? Vegans' ethical framework is that the murder of animals is unacceptable, and so there is no middle ground. That's not extremism, it's a different framework. To frame it as a spectrum is a misunderstanding.
      - constantius 22d ago
        Ah you said it much better than I did, I'll link your comment.
      - dudefeliciano 22d ago
        Pretty sure vegetarians and vegans both are against the killing of animals, so don't know what you are trying to argue. And yes it is very much a spectrum that (very roughly, and not exclusively) goes from: cannibalism -> eating animals -> eating animal derived products -> eating only vegetables and fruit -> eating only vegetable and fruit that fell to the ground without being picked. And I find it ironic in that you are kind of proving the point, by painting it as a black and white issue. This is what the "extremism" means to me. Another form of that spectrum could be: Endangered species -> wild animals -> farmed animals. Do you think it would be as wrong to kill the last specimens of an animal that is about to go extinct as it would be to kill an animal that has been bred over thousands of years and could probably not survive in the wild on its own? While i am against all killing, when presented with this choice the answer is pretty clear to me. And you even made a similar distinction yourself in another comment here: >I hope people say the same about all animals, but especially mammals. So again, not sure what you are trying to argue.
- constantius 22d ago
  You have a conclusion that you want to defend and some biases you're unaware of, so you're also not aware how tortured this argument sounds. Pick some other topic. For example: are people who thinkthat slavery is inherently and always wrong just stupid extremists, compared to people who accept that 'some' slavery is fine? I feel like you're the type to walk around with calipers. Edit: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49436484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49436484 for a better written argument.

suriyaG 23d ago

> Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level this is such a... wrong conclusion to make from the study. the study has found a correlation and by no means is it a causation. there are so many cultural, societal reasons for this to be the case. (eg. in india, upper caste people are usually vegetarians who generally have more access to education.)

blacksmith_tb 23d ago
Except that the study is from France?
- suriyaG 23d ago
  it was an example of a correlation != causation the parent comment was basically creating a causational logic for why vegetarians are more likely to be "smart"-er. which is not true.
  - rendall 23d ago
    > > Compared with meat-eaters, vegetarians were more likely to have a higher educational level, whereas vegans had a lower education level > this is such a... wrong conclusion to make from the study. the study has found a correlation and by no means is it a causation. I'm not seeing any assertion of causation from that quote.
kakacik 23d ago
Dude, most of India are vegetarians. If you have seen the sanitary conditions for storing meat (or at least in 2008/2010 when I backpacked around the country), you would also become one. I certainly did. Curries with meat were more expensive than vegetable ones in every dhaba. The bonus of not having to pick tiny pieces of meat from heap of chicken bones was a nice bonus (since touching food with hands was generally a very bad idea, sanitizer or not).
- jdkdb76 23d ago