The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Virginia Dare Archive
The IQ Gap and the Science Fair Project–Diversity Makes Even Smart People Stupid
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
RaceIQSacto

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Where is the March for Science when you need it?

The science deniers are out in full force. And no, it’s not some evangelical Christians in flyover country trying to keep someone from talking about evolution. It’s the real threat to science these days – liberal reporters from the Left Coast.

A student at a science fair did a presentation on race and IQ. The science, as an increasing number of people are admitting, is indisputable. But perhaps for that reason, teachers, reporters and administrators want to make sure no one is allowed to discuss it.

The project that started the controversy was titled “Race and IQ.” It raised the hypothesis: “If the average IQs of blacks, Southeast Asians, and Hispanics are lower than the average IQs of non-Hispanic whites and Northeast Asians, then the racial disproportionality in (HISP) is justified.”

[High school science fair project questioning African American intelligence sparks outrage, by Diana Lambert and Anita Chabria, The Sacramento Bee, February 10, 2018]

You can almost sense the frustration in the article from the reporters because they can’t call the student a Nazi or a white supremacist. He’s Asian, the group which statistically has the most realistic view of the racial IQ gap. (Chart via Audacious Epigone.)

Reporters Lambert and Chabria sternly lecture us that such ideas are not to be entertained. Lambert [Email her] particularly seems to be on a bit of a crusade to get more set-asides for various groups, judging from her Twitter feed. And as Anita Chabria [Email her] is a “social justice reporter,” you already know her agenda.

Incredibly, and quite dishonestly, they link human biodiversity to eugenics.

The idea of race being tied to intelligence has a long and controversial history and is considered fringe. It is associated with other ideas including eugenics – often euphemistically referred to as ‘human biodiversity’ in recent years – that attempt to tie racial superiority to science.

Considered “fringe” by whom?

Human biodiversity is simply the scientific examination of human differences. That’s not eugenics. Making claims like this is not just “fake news,” it’s just blatant lying.

Human biodiversity shows different groups, on average, have different capabilities. This is simply a fact, based on the best research we have. As we are a modern society, not some primitive tribe, we look at scientific evidence to determine truth, we don’t just work backwards from our feelings and demand the world conform to our wishes.

Disagree? Show me evidence that proves me wrong. If the evidence does show there is no racial intelligence gap, then people who believe in HBD are wrong and they should change their minds. That’s how the human species progresses.

But for some reason, we don’t do that when it comes to racial differences in intelligence. We simply make claims about absolute equality based on no evidence. And when someone denies these claims, we determine “outrage” is sufficient reason to silence that person. No less lofty a personage than “Sacramento City Unified School District Superintendent” Jorge Aguilar [Email him] has made an emotional video denouncing the episode, and, subtly, promoting open borders policies.

Not surprising, considering that district’s history of turning education into leftist propaganda.

I’m not impressed. As Stefan Molyneux might say, Aguilar’s wailing is “not an argument.” (If it seems like English is a second language to him, its because while Aguilar was born in America, his parents were migrant laborers from Mexico.) He had never met any blacks or Asians before he attended Berkeley. [Buckle up, Sac City Unified parents: A reformer is about to take over, By Marcos Bretón, Sacbee.com, May 19, 2017]

One also has to ask why sparking “outrage” is sufficient reason for a scientific hypothesis to be opposed. After all, many people were “outraged” by a scientific theory which they thought denied the truth of Scripture. Many people were “outraged” by the connotation they were descended from apes and monkeys and not simply created by God in the Garden of Eden. Many people blame the introduction of theory of evolution for driving God out of the classroom and so opening the door to the immorality and vulgarity which plagues classrooms today.

Yet the feelings of such people are routinely mocked in the media, going all the way back to the 1960 film Inherit The Wind, if not before. Apparently, the feelings of some people are more important than others.

Indeed, rather than this episode forcing an objective examination about racial differences in intelligence, it’s being used as an excuse to impose more “diversity” in gifted programs. Of course, the only way to do that is by lowering standards, which removes the whole point of the gifted programs. Indeed, it’s because of the objective existence of racial differences in intelligence that we know any gifted program is going to have disproportionately large members of some groups (such as Asians) and disproportionately smaller members of others.

One would think teachers, of all people, would know that. But just as the last place you’ll discover the truth today is in a newspaper, the last place you’ll find real science today is in an American school. At least the public ones.

Email Virginia Dare.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: Political Correctness, Race and Iq 
Hide 32 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. IQ tests are constructed to get the results seen. Item analysis and selection can change the test. You can make blacks score higher than whites, women score higher than men, all through item selection and analysis. There is no cognitive theory for what items are chosen for the test, it’s subjective to the constructors. John Raven used his ‘intuition’ to choose difficult items for his test. IQ is a farce. It only ‘predicts’ life outcomes because they’re calibrated against social class due to item analysis and selection. So lower classes score worse than higher classes because they have differential access to cultural and psychological tools needed to score well on the test.

    Cognitive systems have evolved to deal with changeable but unpredictable circumstances, like those created in social contexts. This occurs by distilling the abstract informational structure and then apply it to the problem. These structure then can be used as psychological tools, which can then be used to generate processes specific to the problem at hand but informed by the informational structure. Cultural tools are self-explanatory.

    What we do have are self-organizing dynamical, developmental systems that, in a way, drive their own evolution. These dynamical, developmental systems use not only biological tools (eyes, hands, ears etc) but cultural tools as well. We’re just self-organizing dynamical systems that use cultural tools. Though this differential access to these cultural tools explains so-called ‘intelligence’ differences between individuals (along with test construction) and social classes.

    So, as you can see, since IQ tests are calibrated against social class and tests are constructed by people from a narrow, higher social class, lower class people score worse because they’re differentially prepared for the test.

    What “truth” is there to discover using highly flawed and biased tests for ‘intelligence’ when we don’t have a definition for intelligence, and the tests are constructed to show what the constructors want? IQ is straight ideology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    Why do blacks have slower decision-making times (but faster hand-movement times to register their decisions on a console) for simple mental tasks, and why do they score worse on backwards digits tests? Why, even in developed countries, do they average less brain tissue?

    Denial of the validity and reliability of various intelligence tests is ideology.

    , @Old Left
    I don't have a philosophy or theory about IQ tests but I do know this: intelligence has no correlation to success in America. In both the corporate and academic worlds that I know firsthand, sycophancy fused with smug stupidity and ruthless opportunism garners advancement. Look at the creme de la creme in this country. Then tell me they're the most intelligent people around.
    , @Bill Jones
    IQ tests results are strongly correlated with Life results.

    Even in Shithole countries.
    , @Santoculto
    ''Truth''
    'intelligence'
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. phil says:
    @RaceRealist88
    IQ tests are constructed to get the results seen. Item analysis and selection can change the test. You can make blacks score higher than whites, women score higher than men, all through item selection and analysis. There is no cognitive theory for what items are chosen for the test, it's subjective to the constructors. John Raven used his 'intuition' to choose difficult items for his test. IQ is a farce. It only 'predicts' life outcomes because they're calibrated against social class due to item analysis and selection. So lower classes score worse than higher classes because they have differential access to cultural and psychological tools needed to score well on the test.

    Cognitive systems have evolved to deal with changeable but unpredictable circumstances, like those created in social contexts. This occurs by distilling the abstract informational structure and then apply it to the problem. These structure then can be used as psychological tools, which can then be used to generate processes specific to the problem at hand but informed by the informational structure. Cultural tools are self-explanatory.

    What we do have are self-organizing dynamical, developmental systems that, in a way, drive their own evolution. These dynamical, developmental systems use not only biological tools (eyes, hands, ears etc) but cultural tools as well. We’re just self-organizing dynamical systems that use cultural tools. Though this differential access to these cultural tools explains so-called ‘intelligence’ differences between individuals (along with test construction) and social classes.

    So, as you can see, since IQ tests are calibrated against social class and tests are constructed by people from a narrow, higher social class, lower class people score worse because they're differentially prepared for the test.

    https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/250660667/Richardson-2002-What-Iq-Tests-Test

    What "truth" is there to discover using highly flawed and biased tests for 'intelligence' when we don't have a definition for intelligence, and the tests are constructed to show what the constructors want? IQ is straight ideology.

    Why do blacks have slower decision-making times (but faster hand-movement times to register their decisions on a console) for simple mental tasks, and why do they score worse on backwards digits tests? Why, even in developed countries, do they average less brain tissue?

    Denial of the validity and reliability of various intelligence tests is ideology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Why do blacks have slower decision-making times (but faster hand-movement times to register their decisions on a console)"

    Regarding reaction time?

    "why do they score worse on backwards digits tests?"

    Does this prove a biological/physiological structure to 'IQ'? I don't know why, do you?

    "why do they score worse on backwards digits tests?"

    This means less 'intelligence'?

    "Denial of the validity and reliability of various intelligence tests is ideology."

    IQ tests are not construct valid like breathalyzers are, and how white blood cell count is a proxy for disease in the body. No construct validity exists for IQ. The 'reliability' is due to test construction and item selection/analysis. The test constructors can get any "conclusion" they want by manipulating the items on the test. This is a truism.

    Using the logic of test construction and item analysis and selection, we can logically state that it's possible for blacks to score higher than whites and women to score higher than men. This was actually debated in the 40s, it was wondered if women scoring similar to men should be allowed to persist, and, of course, they chose that it shouldn't be allowed so they changed the test. This shows how subjective item analysis and selection truly is.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @phil
    Why do blacks have slower decision-making times (but faster hand-movement times to register their decisions on a console) for simple mental tasks, and why do they score worse on backwards digits tests? Why, even in developed countries, do they average less brain tissue?

    Denial of the validity and reliability of various intelligence tests is ideology.

    “Why do blacks have slower decision-making times (but faster hand-movement times to register their decisions on a console)”

    Regarding reaction time?

    “why do they score worse on backwards digits tests?”

    Does this prove a biological/physiological structure to ‘IQ’? I don’t know why, do you?

    “why do they score worse on backwards digits tests?”

    This means less ‘intelligence’?

    “Denial of the validity and reliability of various intelligence tests is ideology.”

    IQ tests are not construct valid like breathalyzers are, and how white blood cell count is a proxy for disease in the body. No construct validity exists for IQ. The ‘reliability’ is due to test construction and item selection/analysis. The test constructors can get any “conclusion” they want by manipulating the items on the test. This is a truism.

    Using the logic of test construction and item analysis and selection, we can logically state that it’s possible for blacks to score higher than whites and women to score higher than men. This was actually debated in the 40s, it was wondered if women scoring similar to men should be allowed to persist, and, of course, they chose that it shouldn’t be allowed so they changed the test. This shows how subjective item analysis and selection truly is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    The test constructors can get any “conclusion” they want by manipulating the items on the test. This is a truism.
     
    Quite contraire. People who try - for non-scientific, religious reasons - to belittle the obvious intelligence differences between races have even gone so far as to argue that mathematics is not a valid measure of intelligence (because there is no way to "bias" mathematics towards the "upper class" or "Whites" or "men" or any other category of person because math is objectively math).

    Math isn't the only category of thought/intelligence which is more objective than detractors care to admit. But to prove the validity of IQ tests and the intelligence gap between "races" and "sexes", one does not have to go further. Mathematics conclusively establishes the difference.

    At the end of the day you can argue, in hysterical defense of your religious (Communist/secular humanist) precept of "equality", that math doesn't matter. But then, you may as well argue intelligence does not matter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. If I were black or hispanic I’d do my best to be the exception to the norm and take pride in that, rather than sitting around on my ass whining about “racist” studies and attempting to silence all discussions.

    But then if most blacks and hispanics think like I do such studies wouldn’t be necessary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Do you do your best to be the exception to the norm, amongst your peers, now?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    As I’ve had occasion to note in previous comments, back in the early 1980′s in the role of materials provider for a Chinese standardization of a major non-verbal intelligence test, I was struck when the then Vice President of the Chinese Psychological Society remarked to me how important for the formation of ( of the then yet fledgling ) educational psychology in China the work of Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck should be. Word reaching me twenty years later from former U. of New Orleans Professor Edward McCarthy suggested that regard to biological realism in psychology was far less impeded and far more quickly advancing in China than seemed yet possible here in the U.S.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Truth says:
    @Realist 2018
    If I were black or hispanic I'd do my best to be the exception to the norm and take pride in that, rather than sitting around on my ass whining about "racist" studies and attempting to silence all discussions.

    But then if most blacks and hispanics think like I do such studies wouldn't be necessary.

    Do you do your best to be the exception to the norm, amongst your peers, now?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. AKAHorace says:

    Even if it was rubbish, it was just a science fair presentation. Is the message “are we doing enough to censor science fair presentations ?” what we need to be saying to high schools students ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. CalDre says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Why do blacks have slower decision-making times (but faster hand-movement times to register their decisions on a console)"

    Regarding reaction time?

    "why do they score worse on backwards digits tests?"

    Does this prove a biological/physiological structure to 'IQ'? I don't know why, do you?

    "why do they score worse on backwards digits tests?"

    This means less 'intelligence'?

    "Denial of the validity and reliability of various intelligence tests is ideology."

    IQ tests are not construct valid like breathalyzers are, and how white blood cell count is a proxy for disease in the body. No construct validity exists for IQ. The 'reliability' is due to test construction and item selection/analysis. The test constructors can get any "conclusion" they want by manipulating the items on the test. This is a truism.

    Using the logic of test construction and item analysis and selection, we can logically state that it's possible for blacks to score higher than whites and women to score higher than men. This was actually debated in the 40s, it was wondered if women scoring similar to men should be allowed to persist, and, of course, they chose that it shouldn't be allowed so they changed the test. This shows how subjective item analysis and selection truly is.

    The test constructors can get any “conclusion” they want by manipulating the items on the test. This is a truism.

    Quite contraire. People who try – for non-scientific, religious reasons – to belittle the obvious intelligence differences between races have even gone so far as to argue that mathematics is not a valid measure of intelligence (because there is no way to “bias” mathematics towards the “upper class” or “Whites” or “men” or any other category of person because math is objectively math).

    Math isn’t the only category of thought/intelligence which is more objective than detractors care to admit. But to prove the validity of IQ tests and the intelligence gap between “races” and “sexes”, one does not have to go further. Mathematics conclusively establishes the difference.

    At the end of the day you can argue, in hysterical defense of your religious (Communist/secular humanist) precept of “equality”, that math doesn’t matter. But then, you may as well argue intelligence does not matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Writing, or philosophy, "establish the difference" no less than maths and physics do.
    The difference lies in that, unlike maths or physics, humanities provide room for the so-strongly socially and individually needed deception and self-deception demanding differences not be seen.

    That's the only reason making graduation in history or musicology easier than physics or nuclear engineering — also, to be frank.
    When words replace numbers, pretending, and granting to people's ego what they need (which is ever the belief that they know and understand, and never knowledge and understanding) becomes doable — and it is done.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Quite contraire. People who try – for non-scientific, religious reasons – to belittle the obvious intelligence differences between races have even gone so far as to argue that mathematics is not a valid measure of intelligence (because there is no way to “bias” mathematics towards the “upper class” or “Whites” or “men” or any other category of person because math is objectively math)."

    Who did this? You must have responded to the wrong person on the wrong website.

    "Math isn’t the only category of thought/intelligence which is more objective than detractors care to admit. But to prove the validity of IQ tests and the intelligence gap between “races” and “sexes”, one does not have to go further. Mathematics conclusively establishes the difference."

    Math doesn't give 'IQ' construct validity.

    "At the end of the day you can argue, in hysterical defense of your religious (Communist/secular humanist) precept of “equality”, that math doesn’t matter. But then, you may as well argue intelligence does not matter."

    Yea you must have responded to the wrong person on the wrong website because I'm not religious, I'm not a commie, and I'm not a secular humanist. Math does not lend 'IQ' construct validity. We don't know what" "intelligence " is nor is there a theory of individual intelligence differences, so therefore math shows how 'intelligent' individuals and groups are. Yawn.

    Since you seem to be assuming my motivation because of what I wrote (very very strongly I may add), how about this analogy.

    Imagine an ‘athletic abilities’ test existed. Imagine that this test was constructed on the basis of who the test constructor believed who is or is not athletic. Imagine that he constructs the test to show that people who had previously low ability in past athletic abilities tests had ‘high athletic ability’ in this new test that he constructed. Then I discover the test. I read about it and I see how it is constructed and what the constructors did to get the results they wanted, because they believed that the lower-ability people in the previous tests had higher ability and therefore constructed an ‘athletic abilities’ test to show they were more ‘athletic’ than the former high performers. I then point out the huge flaws in the construction of such a test. The logic of people who claim that I deny human evolution because I blast the validity and construction of IQ tests would, logically, have to say that I’m denying athletic differences between groups and individuals, when in actuality I’m only pointing out huge flaws in the ‘athletic abilities’ test that was constructed. The athletic abilities example I’ve conjured up is analogous to the IQ test construction tirade I’ve been on recently. So, if a test of ‘athletic ability’ exists and I come and critique it, then no, I am not denying athletic differences between individuals I am only pointing out flawed tests

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/30/athletic-ability-and-iq/

    I don't care about politics, I actually hate communists, and religion and I've never espoused any notion of 'equality'. Are you done battling with that strawman?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @CalDre

    The test constructors can get any “conclusion” they want by manipulating the items on the test. This is a truism.
     
    Quite contraire. People who try - for non-scientific, religious reasons - to belittle the obvious intelligence differences between races have even gone so far as to argue that mathematics is not a valid measure of intelligence (because there is no way to "bias" mathematics towards the "upper class" or "Whites" or "men" or any other category of person because math is objectively math).

    Math isn't the only category of thought/intelligence which is more objective than detractors care to admit. But to prove the validity of IQ tests and the intelligence gap between "races" and "sexes", one does not have to go further. Mathematics conclusively establishes the difference.

    At the end of the day you can argue, in hysterical defense of your religious (Communist/secular humanist) precept of "equality", that math doesn't matter. But then, you may as well argue intelligence does not matter.

    Writing, or philosophy, “establish the difference” no less than maths and physics do.
    The difference lies in that, unlike maths or physics, humanities provide room for the so-strongly socially and individually needed deception and self-deception demanding differences not be seen.

    That’s the only reason making graduation in history or musicology easier than physics or nuclear engineering — also, to be frank.
    When words replace numbers, pretending, and granting to people’s ego what they need (which is ever the belief that they know and understand, and never knowledge and understanding) becomes doable — and it is done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @CalDre

    The test constructors can get any “conclusion” they want by manipulating the items on the test. This is a truism.
     
    Quite contraire. People who try - for non-scientific, religious reasons - to belittle the obvious intelligence differences between races have even gone so far as to argue that mathematics is not a valid measure of intelligence (because there is no way to "bias" mathematics towards the "upper class" or "Whites" or "men" or any other category of person because math is objectively math).

    Math isn't the only category of thought/intelligence which is more objective than detractors care to admit. But to prove the validity of IQ tests and the intelligence gap between "races" and "sexes", one does not have to go further. Mathematics conclusively establishes the difference.

    At the end of the day you can argue, in hysterical defense of your religious (Communist/secular humanist) precept of "equality", that math doesn't matter. But then, you may as well argue intelligence does not matter.

    “Quite contraire. People who try – for non-scientific, religious reasons – to belittle the obvious intelligence differences between races have even gone so far as to argue that mathematics is not a valid measure of intelligence (because there is no way to “bias” mathematics towards the “upper class” or “Whites” or “men” or any other category of person because math is objectively math).”

    Who did this? You must have responded to the wrong person on the wrong website.

    “Math isn’t the only category of thought/intelligence which is more objective than detractors care to admit. But to prove the validity of IQ tests and the intelligence gap between “races” and “sexes”, one does not have to go further. Mathematics conclusively establishes the difference.”

    Math doesn’t give ‘IQ’ construct validity.

    “At the end of the day you can argue, in hysterical defense of your religious (Communist/secular humanist) precept of “equality”, that math doesn’t matter. But then, you may as well argue intelligence does not matter.”

    Yea you must have responded to the wrong person on the wrong website because I’m not religious, I’m not a commie, and I’m not a secular humanist. Math does not lend ‘IQ’ construct validity. We don’t know what” “intelligence ” is nor is there a theory of individual intelligence differences, so therefore math shows how ‘intelligent’ individuals and groups are. Yawn.

    Since you seem to be assuming my motivation because of what I wrote (very very strongly I may add), how about this analogy.

    Imagine an ‘athletic abilities’ test existed. Imagine that this test was constructed on the basis of who the test constructor believed who is or is not athletic. Imagine that he constructs the test to show that people who had previously low ability in past athletic abilities tests had ‘high athletic ability’ in this new test that he constructed. Then I discover the test. I read about it and I see how it is constructed and what the constructors did to get the results they wanted, because they believed that the lower-ability people in the previous tests had higher ability and therefore constructed an ‘athletic abilities’ test to show they were more ‘athletic’ than the former high performers. I then point out the huge flaws in the construction of such a test. The logic of people who claim that I deny human evolution because I blast the validity and construction of IQ tests would, logically, have to say that I’m denying athletic differences between groups and individuals, when in actuality I’m only pointing out huge flaws in the ‘athletic abilities’ test that was constructed. The athletic abilities example I’ve conjured up is analogous to the IQ test construction tirade I’ve been on recently. So, if a test of ‘athletic ability’ exists and I come and critique it, then no, I am not denying athletic differences between individuals I am only pointing out flawed tests

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/30/athletic-ability-and-iq/

    I don’t care about politics, I actually hate communists, and religion and I’ve never espoused any notion of ‘equality’. Are you done battling with that strawman?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre

    Who did this? You must have responded to the wrong person on the wrong website.
     
    You a solipsist? When I wrote "people who try", I did not write about you, and so let the strawman hanging begin in your own backyard.

    Math doesn’t give ‘IQ’ construct validity.
     
    It most certainly does. Because first, in math, the time delay between action and reality is instantaneous, second, math can be easily tested, and third, math is an integral component of "advancement". You're assumption (and, yes, now I am referring to you) seems to be there is no way to know what intelligence is, much less how to measure intelligence. My counterpoint is, math is an excellent way to measure intelligence. Which is why virtually every IQ test has a math component (even if trigonometric or geometric rather than algebraic). So now I should say, you are not just a solipsist, but a nihilistic solipsist. We can't know anything, not even what intelligence is. And if we can't know what is intelligence, we certainly cannot know anything else, such as, what is a computer, a chair, or a spoon. Indeed, language is a relic of an ignorant past, when people thought they could know things, or that intelligence exists.

    It's a fine theory, I have delved in nihilism before. But it's a bit much to claim that you know something (e.g., IQ tests are invalid) when you are claiming, implicitly, that nothing is knowable. That, my friend, makes you an obnoxious hypocrite in my book.

    You wrote in your earlier post: "it’s possible for blacks to score higher than whites and women to score higher than men." Go ahead, give me a series of ten advanced trigonometry questions on which blacks consistently score higher than whites and women higher than men. It's all in the question selection, right? So, what are the questions that prove your point?

    Your more fundamental issue is, you do not understand what is an IQ test. There are many different types. Even the SAT, GMAT, MCAT and ACT are "IQ tests". Anything that measures intelligence is an "IQ test". No doubt some tests which claim to measure intelligence, don't in fact accomplish that, but your attack was more generic, i.e., that it is not possible to measure intelligence. So it cannot be possible to measure anything, since it's all about constructs, right? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Give me a break.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Nobody has yet brought up Virginia Dare’s great point toward the bottom of the article. Peak Stupidity discusses it. Regarding the Virginia Dare paragraphs:

    One also has to ask why sparking “outrage” is sufficient reason for a scientific hypothesis to be opposed. After all, many people were “outraged” by a scientific theory which they thought denied the truth of Scripture. Many people were “outraged” by the connotation they were descended from apes and monkeys and not simply created by God in the Garden of Eden. Many people blame the introduction of theory of evolution for driving God out of the classroom and so opening the door to the immorality and vulgarity which plagues classrooms today.

    Yet the feelings of such people are routinely mocked in the media, going all the way back to the 1960 film Inherit The Wind, if not before. Apparently, the feelings of some people are more important than others.

    Yes, back in the day, not quite a century back, when the teaching of evolution was being pushed into the primary schools, there were big political battles about it. Whatever you think about it, there was no worry from the progressives of just regular science-trusting folks on about the fact that this curriculum being forced upon the schools was hurtful to their religious culture, making them feel bad, whatever. As the last sentence in the quote of VDare says, it’s perfectly OK to offend Christians and/or white people, in the name of science. Rightly so on that, but this offensiveness has gone WAY beyond science. Additionally, it is hypocritical for these “race denialists” to be stopping science due to worries about hurt feelings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. rufus says:

    ahh, the obligatory “tests are biased” response…. brilliant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. CalDre says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "Quite contraire. People who try – for non-scientific, religious reasons – to belittle the obvious intelligence differences between races have even gone so far as to argue that mathematics is not a valid measure of intelligence (because there is no way to “bias” mathematics towards the “upper class” or “Whites” or “men” or any other category of person because math is objectively math)."

    Who did this? You must have responded to the wrong person on the wrong website.

    "Math isn’t the only category of thought/intelligence which is more objective than detractors care to admit. But to prove the validity of IQ tests and the intelligence gap between “races” and “sexes”, one does not have to go further. Mathematics conclusively establishes the difference."

    Math doesn't give 'IQ' construct validity.

    "At the end of the day you can argue, in hysterical defense of your religious (Communist/secular humanist) precept of “equality”, that math doesn’t matter. But then, you may as well argue intelligence does not matter."

    Yea you must have responded to the wrong person on the wrong website because I'm not religious, I'm not a commie, and I'm not a secular humanist. Math does not lend 'IQ' construct validity. We don't know what" "intelligence " is nor is there a theory of individual intelligence differences, so therefore math shows how 'intelligent' individuals and groups are. Yawn.

    Since you seem to be assuming my motivation because of what I wrote (very very strongly I may add), how about this analogy.

    Imagine an ‘athletic abilities’ test existed. Imagine that this test was constructed on the basis of who the test constructor believed who is or is not athletic. Imagine that he constructs the test to show that people who had previously low ability in past athletic abilities tests had ‘high athletic ability’ in this new test that he constructed. Then I discover the test. I read about it and I see how it is constructed and what the constructors did to get the results they wanted, because they believed that the lower-ability people in the previous tests had higher ability and therefore constructed an ‘athletic abilities’ test to show they were more ‘athletic’ than the former high performers. I then point out the huge flaws in the construction of such a test. The logic of people who claim that I deny human evolution because I blast the validity and construction of IQ tests would, logically, have to say that I’m denying athletic differences between groups and individuals, when in actuality I’m only pointing out huge flaws in the ‘athletic abilities’ test that was constructed. The athletic abilities example I’ve conjured up is analogous to the IQ test construction tirade I’ve been on recently. So, if a test of ‘athletic ability’ exists and I come and critique it, then no, I am not denying athletic differences between individuals I am only pointing out flawed tests

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/12/30/athletic-ability-and-iq/

    I don't care about politics, I actually hate communists, and religion and I've never espoused any notion of 'equality'. Are you done battling with that strawman?

    Who did this? You must have responded to the wrong person on the wrong website.

    You a solipsist? When I wrote “people who try”, I did not write about you, and so let the strawman hanging begin in your own backyard.

    Math doesn’t give ‘IQ’ construct validity.

    It most certainly does. Because first, in math, the time delay between action and reality is instantaneous, second, math can be easily tested, and third, math is an integral component of “advancement”. You’re assumption (and, yes, now I am referring to you) seems to be there is no way to know what intelligence is, much less how to measure intelligence. My counterpoint is, math is an excellent way to measure intelligence. Which is why virtually every IQ test has a math component (even if trigonometric or geometric rather than algebraic). So now I should say, you are not just a solipsist, but a nihilistic solipsist. We can’t know anything, not even what intelligence is. And if we can’t know what is intelligence, we certainly cannot know anything else, such as, what is a computer, a chair, or a spoon. Indeed, language is a relic of an ignorant past, when people thought they could know things, or that intelligence exists.

    It’s a fine theory, I have delved in nihilism before. But it’s a bit much to claim that you know something (e.g., IQ tests are invalid) when you are claiming, implicitly, that nothing is knowable. That, my friend, makes you an obnoxious hypocrite in my book.

    You wrote in your earlier post: “it’s possible for blacks to score higher than whites and women to score higher than men.” Go ahead, give me a series of ten advanced trigonometry questions on which blacks consistently score higher than whites and women higher than men. It’s all in the question selection, right? So, what are the questions that prove your point?

    Your more fundamental issue is, you do not understand what is an IQ test. There are many different types. Even the SAT, GMAT, MCAT and ACT are “IQ tests”. Anything that measures intelligence is an “IQ test”. No doubt some tests which claim to measure intelligence, don’t in fact accomplish that, but your attack was more generic, i.e., that it is not possible to measure intelligence. So it cannot be possible to measure anything, since it’s all about constructs, right? Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle? Give me a break.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "there is no way to know what intelligence"

    At the moment we have no definition of 'intelligence' nor a theory of why individuals differ in 'intelligence' yet we 'find genes for' a process we've not described?

    "And if we can’t know what is intelligence, we certainly cannot know anything else, such as, what is a computer, a chair, or a spoon. Indeed, language is a relic of an ignorant past, when people thought they could know things, or that intelligence exists."

    This is dumb. We know what chair's are. There is no consensus on what 'intelligence' is.

    "It’s a fine theory, I have delved in nihilism before. But it’s a bit much to claim that you know something (e.g., IQ tests are invalid) when you are claiming, implicitly, that nothing is knowable. That, my friend, makes you an obnoxious hypocrite in my book."

    Because i argue that IQ tests aren't construct valid (they're not) means I must accept 'nothing is knowable'? What? Who are you even talking to? I'm a nihilist because I am critical of IQ tests?

    "You wrote in your earlier post: “it’s possible for blacks to score higher than whites and women to score higher than men.” Go ahead, give me a series of ten advanced trigonometry questions on which blacks consistently score higher than whites and women higher than men. It’s all in the question selection, right? So, what are the questions that prove your point?"

    If you knew anything about test construction and how items are chosen for inclusion or removal in the test you'd see how it's possible to do so. It's all in the analysis of the items. You're asking me to give you advanced trig questions women and blacks can do better than men and whites on? I'm not a test constructor. My critique still stands.

    "Your more fundamental issue is, you do not understand what is an IQ test. There are many different types. Even the SAT, GMAT, MCAT and ACT are “IQ tests”. Anything that measures intelligence is an “IQ test”."

    What is intelligence? How do academic achievement tests test 'intelligence'? You're just making unfounded claims.

    "that it is not possible to measure intelligence"

    Not with what we have now. We don't even know what intelligence *is* so how can we measure it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Old Left says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88
    IQ tests are constructed to get the results seen. Item analysis and selection can change the test. You can make blacks score higher than whites, women score higher than men, all through item selection and analysis. There is no cognitive theory for what items are chosen for the test, it's subjective to the constructors. John Raven used his 'intuition' to choose difficult items for his test. IQ is a farce. It only 'predicts' life outcomes because they're calibrated against social class due to item analysis and selection. So lower classes score worse than higher classes because they have differential access to cultural and psychological tools needed to score well on the test.

    Cognitive systems have evolved to deal with changeable but unpredictable circumstances, like those created in social contexts. This occurs by distilling the abstract informational structure and then apply it to the problem. These structure then can be used as psychological tools, which can then be used to generate processes specific to the problem at hand but informed by the informational structure. Cultural tools are self-explanatory.

    What we do have are self-organizing dynamical, developmental systems that, in a way, drive their own evolution. These dynamical, developmental systems use not only biological tools (eyes, hands, ears etc) but cultural tools as well. We’re just self-organizing dynamical systems that use cultural tools. Though this differential access to these cultural tools explains so-called ‘intelligence’ differences between individuals (along with test construction) and social classes.

    So, as you can see, since IQ tests are calibrated against social class and tests are constructed by people from a narrow, higher social class, lower class people score worse because they're differentially prepared for the test.

    https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/250660667/Richardson-2002-What-Iq-Tests-Test

    What "truth" is there to discover using highly flawed and biased tests for 'intelligence' when we don't have a definition for intelligence, and the tests are constructed to show what the constructors want? IQ is straight ideology.

    I don’t have a philosophy or theory about IQ tests but I do know this: intelligence has no correlation to success in America. In both the corporate and academic worlds that I know firsthand, sycophancy fused with smug stupidity and ruthless opportunism garners advancement. Look at the creme de la creme in this country. Then tell me they’re the most intelligent people around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CalDre
    It's all based on inheritance. The vast majority of oligarchs inherited their wealth, the rest are the sycophants and opportunists that fawn to the inherited powerful.

    Inheritance of capital is as unjust and evil as slavery. Unfortunately virtually the only ones making this observation are Communists, which is another form of slavery. Very few people actually understand freedom, liberty and justice - all they see are the corrupted constructs thrown their way by the (inherited) oligarchs, be they "capitalists" or "Communists".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Rich says:

    Jorge Aguilar actually brags about being admitted into schools he wasn’t qualified for, with low test scores, taking the slot of a more qualified person just because of his ethnic background. The man is obviously mentally ill. He whines about not having more people “who looked like him” in his classes, but if a White kid said the same thing, Aguliar would have him expelled. How long can this denial of reality last? Promoting incompetent minorities again and again cannot end well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. “IQ tests are constructed to get the results seen. You can make blacks score higher than whites, …”

    This is surprising and important news. Do you have a link?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. CalDre says:
    @Old Left
    I don't have a philosophy or theory about IQ tests but I do know this: intelligence has no correlation to success in America. In both the corporate and academic worlds that I know firsthand, sycophancy fused with smug stupidity and ruthless opportunism garners advancement. Look at the creme de la creme in this country. Then tell me they're the most intelligent people around.

    It’s all based on inheritance. The vast majority of oligarchs inherited their wealth, the rest are the sycophants and opportunists that fawn to the inherited powerful.

    Inheritance of capital is as unjust and evil as slavery. Unfortunately virtually the only ones making this observation are Communists, which is another form of slavery. Very few people actually understand freedom, liberty and justice – all they see are the corrupted constructs thrown their way by the (inherited) oligarchs, be they “capitalists” or “Communists”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "Inheritance of capital is as unjust and evil as slavery. Unfortunately virtually the only ones making this observation are Communists, which is another form of slavery."

    Weird statement, old thing. First you admit to being a communist, then you flog yourself mercilessly for being one. Thank you for the entertainment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Mr. RaceRealist88 is a frequent commenter on this topic, here and elsewhere. He’s a Ken Richardson fan, Richardson being a contrarian from the early 1970s during the first race-IQ controversy triggered by Jensen’s 1969 paper.

    Emil Kirkegaard addresses some of RR88′s ideas here, calling him a sort of Richard Nisbitt type:

    http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=6994

    RR88’s posts generally reflect quite a bit of digging around work, and so while they are often misguided, they are not lazy, and I respect hard work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Emil called Richardson a Nisbett-type because of one citation he used with a small n.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @RaceRealist88
    IQ tests are constructed to get the results seen. Item analysis and selection can change the test. You can make blacks score higher than whites, women score higher than men, all through item selection and analysis. There is no cognitive theory for what items are chosen for the test, it's subjective to the constructors. John Raven used his 'intuition' to choose difficult items for his test. IQ is a farce. It only 'predicts' life outcomes because they're calibrated against social class due to item analysis and selection. So lower classes score worse than higher classes because they have differential access to cultural and psychological tools needed to score well on the test.

    Cognitive systems have evolved to deal with changeable but unpredictable circumstances, like those created in social contexts. This occurs by distilling the abstract informational structure and then apply it to the problem. These structure then can be used as psychological tools, which can then be used to generate processes specific to the problem at hand but informed by the informational structure. Cultural tools are self-explanatory.

    What we do have are self-organizing dynamical, developmental systems that, in a way, drive their own evolution. These dynamical, developmental systems use not only biological tools (eyes, hands, ears etc) but cultural tools as well. We’re just self-organizing dynamical systems that use cultural tools. Though this differential access to these cultural tools explains so-called ‘intelligence’ differences between individuals (along with test construction) and social classes.

    So, as you can see, since IQ tests are calibrated against social class and tests are constructed by people from a narrow, higher social class, lower class people score worse because they're differentially prepared for the test.

    https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/250660667/Richardson-2002-What-Iq-Tests-Test

    What "truth" is there to discover using highly flawed and biased tests for 'intelligence' when we don't have a definition for intelligence, and the tests are constructed to show what the constructors want? IQ is straight ideology.

    IQ tests results are strongly correlated with Life results.

    Even in Shithole countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Higher IQ scores may be associated with ''better' outcomes even in pre-''civilized'' societies...
    , @RaceRealist88
    They're constructed to give those results. It's not 'natural'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @RaceRealist88
    IQ tests are constructed to get the results seen. Item analysis and selection can change the test. You can make blacks score higher than whites, women score higher than men, all through item selection and analysis. There is no cognitive theory for what items are chosen for the test, it's subjective to the constructors. John Raven used his 'intuition' to choose difficult items for his test. IQ is a farce. It only 'predicts' life outcomes because they're calibrated against social class due to item analysis and selection. So lower classes score worse than higher classes because they have differential access to cultural and psychological tools needed to score well on the test.

    Cognitive systems have evolved to deal with changeable but unpredictable circumstances, like those created in social contexts. This occurs by distilling the abstract informational structure and then apply it to the problem. These structure then can be used as psychological tools, which can then be used to generate processes specific to the problem at hand but informed by the informational structure. Cultural tools are self-explanatory.

    What we do have are self-organizing dynamical, developmental systems that, in a way, drive their own evolution. These dynamical, developmental systems use not only biological tools (eyes, hands, ears etc) but cultural tools as well. We’re just self-organizing dynamical systems that use cultural tools. Though this differential access to these cultural tools explains so-called ‘intelligence’ differences between individuals (along with test construction) and social classes.

    So, as you can see, since IQ tests are calibrated against social class and tests are constructed by people from a narrow, higher social class, lower class people score worse because they're differentially prepared for the test.

    https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/250660667/Richardson-2002-What-Iq-Tests-Test

    What "truth" is there to discover using highly flawed and biased tests for 'intelligence' when we don't have a definition for intelligence, and the tests are constructed to show what the constructors want? IQ is straight ideology.

    ”Truth”
    ‘intelligence’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. …whatever it is.

    ”EVEN ‘smart’ people stupid”

    Verbal intelligence, mainly factor which is selected in universities, specially in humanities, is not at rigor intelligence itself, in its core, but a capacity to memorize [in very intuitive or faster way] the symbols we used to communicate and to understand the world in more deep way, a ”fixed” world with numbers and words than ”just” ”within-the-world”.

    Verbal ability is analogous to domesticated nonhuman animals when they are trained to internalize orders of their masters, for example, when a trained dog want a cookie s/he signalize it in some specific way OR obey the stablished [previously associated] order/command to be gratified.

    Gratification by association, what verbal ability is, but in humans, this is very ingrained in their/our phenotypical system or salient to be developed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. @Bill Jones
    IQ tests results are strongly correlated with Life results.

    Even in Shithole countries.

    Higher IQ scores may be associated with ”better’ outcomes even in pre-”civilized” societies…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Factorize says:

    I find it increasingly alarming that paleo-Galtonists are fixated on psychometric rounding errors, while neo-Galtonists are urgently pointing to the emerging 1500 IQ humanoids and the then inevitable 10,000 AGI without obvious effect. As a service to humanity I have been providing such public service announcements here on unz. Unfortunately and quite ironically, few appear interested in discussing the recently published science.

    It might be best now to provide free psychotherapy for those coping with this rapidly evolving psychometric landscape. “How does it make you feel to have an intelligence of only a single digit per cent of optimized human g?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    > inevitable 10,000 AGI

    Well, barring the meaninglessness of "IQ 10'000", an AGI is still quite some time away.

    Parking a car in a controlled environment doesn't AGI make.

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/humanlevel-ai-is-right-around-the-corner-or-hundreds-of-years-away

    I'm why Rodney Brooks, there won't be a Deus Ex Machina that will will miracoulously perform a revolution, maybe for the better. We better get our shit in order ourselves.

    How will brainlike computers change the world?

    Since we won’t have intelligent computers like humans for well over 100 years, we cannot make any sensible projections about how they will change the world, as we don’t understand what the world will be like at all in 100 years. (For example, imagine reading Turing’s paper on computable numbers in 1936 and trying to pro­ject out how computers would change the world in just 70 or 80 years.) So an equivalent well-grounded question would have to be something simpler, like “How will computers/robots continue to change the world?” Answer: Within 20 years most baby boomers are going to have robotic devices in their homes, helping them maintain their independence as they age in place. This will include Ray Kurzweil, who will still not be immortal.
     
    OTOH, nasty, pestering, automatons everywhere is quite possible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. El Dato says:
    @Factorize
    I find it increasingly alarming that paleo-Galtonists are fixated on psychometric rounding errors, while neo-Galtonists are urgently pointing to the emerging 1500 IQ humanoids and the then inevitable 10,000 AGI without obvious effect. As a service to humanity I have been providing such public service announcements here on unz. Unfortunately and quite ironically, few appear interested in discussing the recently published science.

    It might be best now to provide free psychotherapy for those coping with this rapidly evolving psychometric landscape. "How does it make you feel to have an intelligence of only a single digit per cent of optimized human g?"

    > inevitable 10,000 AGI

    Well, barring the meaninglessness of “IQ 10’000″, an AGI is still quite some time away.

    Parking a car in a controlled environment doesn’t AGI make.

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/humanlevel-ai-is-right-around-the-corner-or-hundreds-of-years-away

    I’m why Rodney Brooks, there won’t be a Deus Ex Machina that will will miracoulously perform a revolution, maybe for the better. We better get our shit in order ourselves.

    How will brainlike computers change the world?

    Since we won’t have intelligent computers like humans for well over 100 years, we cannot make any sensible projections about how they will change the world, as we don’t understand what the world will be like at all in 100 years. (For example, imagine reading Turing’s paper on computable numbers in 1936 and trying to pro­ject out how computers would change the world in just 70 or 80 years.) So an equivalent well-grounded question would have to be something simpler, like “How will computers/robots continue to change the world?” Answer: Within 20 years most baby boomers are going to have robotic devices in their homes, helping them maintain their independence as they age in place. This will include Ray Kurzweil, who will still not be immortal.

    OTOH, nasty, pestering, automatons everywhere is quite possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Factorize
    El Dato, thank you for replying.

    For the "and the then inevitable 10,000 AGI" quote, I was specifically considering how optimized human IQ (of perhaps 1500+) would then potentiate an essentially infinite IQ AGI.

    You are quite correct to question how a 10,000 IQ AGI might arise with the current psychometric potential of humanity. Such a result could conceivably be decades away. However, in a world populated by optimally IQ enhanced one would expect a Singularity to occur almost immediately.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Factorize says:
    @El Dato
    > inevitable 10,000 AGI

    Well, barring the meaninglessness of "IQ 10'000", an AGI is still quite some time away.

    Parking a car in a controlled environment doesn't AGI make.

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/humanlevel-ai-is-right-around-the-corner-or-hundreds-of-years-away

    I'm why Rodney Brooks, there won't be a Deus Ex Machina that will will miracoulously perform a revolution, maybe for the better. We better get our shit in order ourselves.

    How will brainlike computers change the world?

    Since we won’t have intelligent computers like humans for well over 100 years, we cannot make any sensible projections about how they will change the world, as we don’t understand what the world will be like at all in 100 years. (For example, imagine reading Turing’s paper on computable numbers in 1936 and trying to pro­ject out how computers would change the world in just 70 or 80 years.) So an equivalent well-grounded question would have to be something simpler, like “How will computers/robots continue to change the world?” Answer: Within 20 years most baby boomers are going to have robotic devices in their homes, helping them maintain their independence as they age in place. This will include Ray Kurzweil, who will still not be immortal.
     
    OTOH, nasty, pestering, automatons everywhere is quite possible.

    El Dato, thank you for replying.

    For the “and the then inevitable 10,000 AGI” quote, I was specifically considering how optimized human IQ (of perhaps 1500+) would then potentiate an essentially infinite IQ AGI.

    You are quite correct to question how a 10,000 IQ AGI might arise with the current psychometric potential of humanity. Such a result could conceivably be decades away. However, in a world populated by optimally IQ enhanced one would expect a Singularity to occur almost immediately.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Factorize says:

    El Dato,

    I think the great mistake that is being made by those who believe that the Singularity is somehow off into a distant and unpredictable future is they have not considered that the Genetic Singularity makes the Singularity a certainty in the short term. It appears that the Singularity community has been fully aware of the Genetic Singularity and its implications for sparking the Singularity for quite some time without disclosing this to others.

    My guesstimate is that the Singularity would occur less than 10 years after the Genetic Singularity (that is, highly genetically enhanced human IQ). Current research and technology is now capable of creating such humans. Therefore, essentially infinite IQ AGI might now be on the horizon as soon as 2025.

    It is no longer a question of if or when, but more a question of why. For whatever reason, people continue to want to pretend that life will somehow amble along into the distant future against all current evidence. Delusion is not a productive strategy to cope with reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. @CalDre
    It's all based on inheritance. The vast majority of oligarchs inherited their wealth, the rest are the sycophants and opportunists that fawn to the inherited powerful.

    Inheritance of capital is as unjust and evil as slavery. Unfortunately virtually the only ones making this observation are Communists, which is another form of slavery. Very few people actually understand freedom, liberty and justice - all they see are the corrupted constructs thrown their way by the (inherited) oligarchs, be they "capitalists" or "Communists".

    “Inheritance of capital is as unjust and evil as slavery. Unfortunately virtually the only ones making this observation are Communists, which is another form of slavery.”

    Weird statement, old thing. First you admit to being a communist, then you flog yourself mercilessly for being one. Thank you for the entertainment.

    Read More
    • LOL: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @CalDre
    Gee, I would point out the humor in you being simultaneously smug and close-minded, but no doubt you won't understand. So just two simple observations:

    1. "communism" != "Communism"
    2. Inheritance of private property is an aspect of oligarchy, not capitalism. I.e. private ownership of the means of production does not require or even condone that capital be passed by will or inheritance. Indeed one could argue that inheritance (and the like) is anathema to capitalism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. CalDre says:
    @Twodees Partain
    "Inheritance of capital is as unjust and evil as slavery. Unfortunately virtually the only ones making this observation are Communists, which is another form of slavery."

    Weird statement, old thing. First you admit to being a communist, then you flog yourself mercilessly for being one. Thank you for the entertainment.

    Gee, I would point out the humor in you being simultaneously smug and close-minded, but no doubt you won’t understand. So just two simple observations:

    1. “communism” != “Communism”
    2. Inheritance of private property is an aspect of oligarchy, not capitalism. I.e. private ownership of the means of production does not require or even condone that capital be passed by will or inheritance. Indeed one could argue that inheritance (and the like) is anathema to capitalism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. It’s not inheritance of capital which are evil itself but the denial of its sharing with those who deserve [but have less luck in the life] or who must need.

    Competition among families, the fight for the life WHEN we already can reach the out-of-food-chain–levels at least among ourselves is one of the fundamental human evils.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @Anonymous
    Mr. RaceRealist88 is a frequent commenter on this topic, here and elsewhere. He's a Ken Richardson fan, Richardson being a contrarian from the early 1970s during the first race-IQ controversy triggered by Jensen's 1969 paper.

    Emil Kirkegaard addresses some of RR88's ideas here, calling him a sort of Richard Nisbitt type:

    http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=6994


    RR88’s posts generally reflect quite a bit of digging around work, and so while they are often misguided, they are not lazy, and I respect hard work.
     

    Emil called Richardson a Nisbett-type because of one citation he used with a small n.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Bill Jones
    IQ tests results are strongly correlated with Life results.

    Even in Shithole countries.

    They’re constructed to give those results. It’s not ‘natural’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @CalDre

    Who did this? You must have responded to the wrong person on the wrong website.
     
    You a solipsist? When I wrote "people who try", I did not write about you, and so let the strawman hanging begin in your own backyard.

    Math doesn’t give ‘IQ’ construct validity.
     
    It most certainly does. Because first, in math, the time delay between action and reality is instantaneous, second, math can be easily tested, and third, math is an integral component of "advancement". You're assumption (and, yes, now I am referring to you) seems to be there is no way to know what intelligence is, much less how to measure intelligence. My counterpoint is, math is an excellent way to measure intelligence. Which is why virtually every IQ test has a math component (even if trigonometric or geometric rather than algebraic). So now I should say, you are not just a solipsist, but a nihilistic solipsist. We can't know anything, not even what intelligence is. And if we can't know what is intelligence, we certainly cannot know anything else, such as, what is a computer, a chair, or a spoon. Indeed, language is a relic of an ignorant past, when people thought they could know things, or that intelligence exists.

    It's a fine theory, I have delved in nihilism before. But it's a bit much to claim that you know something (e.g., IQ tests are invalid) when you are claiming, implicitly, that nothing is knowable. That, my friend, makes you an obnoxious hypocrite in my book.

    You wrote in your earlier post: "it’s possible for blacks to score higher than whites and women to score higher than men." Go ahead, give me a series of ten advanced trigonometry questions on which blacks consistently score higher than whites and women higher than men. It's all in the question selection, right? So, what are the questions that prove your point?

    Your more fundamental issue is, you do not understand what is an IQ test. There are many different types. Even the SAT, GMAT, MCAT and ACT are "IQ tests". Anything that measures intelligence is an "IQ test". No doubt some tests which claim to measure intelligence, don't in fact accomplish that, but your attack was more generic, i.e., that it is not possible to measure intelligence. So it cannot be possible to measure anything, since it's all about constructs, right? Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Give me a break.

    “there is no way to know what intelligence”

    At the moment we have no definition of ‘intelligence’ nor a theory of why individuals differ in ‘intelligence’ yet we ‘find genes for’ a process we’ve not described?

    “And if we can’t know what is intelligence, we certainly cannot know anything else, such as, what is a computer, a chair, or a spoon. Indeed, language is a relic of an ignorant past, when people thought they could know things, or that intelligence exists.”

    This is dumb. We know what chair’s are. There is no consensus on what ‘intelligence’ is.

    “It’s a fine theory, I have delved in nihilism before. But it’s a bit much to claim that you know something (e.g., IQ tests are invalid) when you are claiming, implicitly, that nothing is knowable. That, my friend, makes you an obnoxious hypocrite in my book.”

    Because i argue that IQ tests aren’t construct valid (they’re not) means I must accept ‘nothing is knowable’? What? Who are you even talking to? I’m a nihilist because I am critical of IQ tests?

    “You wrote in your earlier post: “it’s possible for blacks to score higher than whites and women to score higher than men.” Go ahead, give me a series of ten advanced trigonometry questions on which blacks consistently score higher than whites and women higher than men. It’s all in the question selection, right? So, what are the questions that prove your point?”

    If you knew anything about test construction and how items are chosen for inclusion or removal in the test you’d see how it’s possible to do so. It’s all in the analysis of the items. You’re asking me to give you advanced trig questions women and blacks can do better than men and whites on? I’m not a test constructor. My critique still stands.

    “Your more fundamental issue is, you do not understand what is an IQ test. There are many different types. Even the SAT, GMAT, MCAT and ACT are “IQ tests”. Anything that measures intelligence is an “IQ test”.”

    What is intelligence? How do academic achievement tests test ‘intelligence’? You’re just making unfounded claims.

    “that it is not possible to measure intelligence”

    Not with what we have now. We don’t even know what intelligence *is* so how can we measure it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?