The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 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
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "African Genetics"
 All Comments / On "African Genetics"
    In my last article, “Scrabble Spells Doom for the Racial Hypothesis of Intelligence,” I argued that Africans should not be able to come anywhere near dominating the games of Scrabble (both English and French) or professional checkers, as they apparently do, if their real biological intelligence was anywhere near as low as their nominal IQ...
  • Curious and impressed by the article.

    I never bought those tabulations of IQ in Africa in the 60s or 70s. It is just too implausible. Either Lynn is grasping for straws at obtaining samples and may be picking up tests that are flawed, or the environment is too dismal, or both. I’ve lived a couple of years in a poor African country. There were many few blacks that spoke the official language (in which presumably the tests were given) as his true first language. They grew up and had primary education in bantu languages, which essentially have no writing, or even numbers above two in many cases. The ones a little better off picked up English/French in their teens, sometimes in the form of a Creole, which obviously separates them in terms of vocabulary from the standard tests prepared in English or French. Besides, one has to take into account the standard explanation for the Flynn effect. People who were perfectly functional in the 1910s would score retarded today. That is because today the dominant patterns of reasoning are more aligned with the logic of the tests. Can’t this be the case in Africa?

    However, I would like a clarification on the author’s position on the “hereditarians”. Do you concede that the gap between blacks and whites within the US is partly genetic? None of the environmental explanations I put forward for Africa/US comparison holds for blacks and whites in America.

    Second, I would like to know why black Africans would outperform black Americans at the top. It defies both environmental and genetic explanations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I knew a Scottish family with distant relatives in Central West Virginia and they were appalled at how unintelligent Appalachians were.

    Appalachia is an embarrassment to Scots, frankly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Agree one hundred percent. Being in the US seems to make people dumb. Why exactly I don´t know but I have it observed too. By the third generation immigrants have lost their edge and become just as “dopey” as the natives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Jews and blacks and Italians concentrate in urban areas where every child is going to develop some street smarts. If you live in NYC or LA you are going to absorb a wider variety of experiences than you will in the sticks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @lessgustoi
    I don´t worship anybody. I just state as undisputable fact that what ever is original in American music is due to African influence. The only great music to come out of the US is Jazz. And yes I am wrong about Keith Jarrett. Evidently he tried to look as African as possible in his early album covers. But I could have named any other number of true back musical geniuses as John Coltrane or Ornette Coleman. Whatever. It is certainly not music for the masses.
    Something else: if you read Unz´s fantastic piece on admissions to Ivy League Universities you will find the curious fact that Jewish achievement in Stem subjects is dropping like a stone compared to Asians. IQ is ultimately little understood and certainly not as static in certain polutions as people believe.

    if you read Unz´s fantastic piece on admissions to Ivy League Universities you will find the curious fact that Jewish achievement in Stem subjects is dropping like a stone compared to Asians.

    Jews have become more Americanized, and are thus dumber than they used to be. Asians are still not properly assimilated, but as they assimilate, they will become as dopey as regular white Americans. The same would be true of African-Americans if they would just adopt the white culture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I don´t worship anybody. I just state as undisputable fact that what ever is original in American music is due to African influence. The only great music to come out of the US is Jazz. And yes I am wrong about Keith Jarrett. Evidently he tried to look as African as possible in his early album covers. But I could have named any other number of true back musical geniuses as John Coltrane or Ornette Coleman. Whatever. It is certainly not music for the masses.
    Something else: if you read Unz´s fantastic piece on admissions to Ivy League Universities you will find the curious fact that Jewish achievement in Stem subjects is dropping like a stone compared to Asians. IQ is ultimately little understood and certainly not as static in certain polutions as people believe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    if you read Unz´s fantastic piece on admissions to Ivy League Universities you will find the curious fact that Jewish achievement in Stem subjects is dropping like a stone compared to Asians.
     
    Jews have become more Americanized, and are thus dumber than they used to be. Asians are still not properly assimilated, but as they assimilate, they will become as dopey as regular white Americans. The same would be true of African-Americans if they would just adopt the white culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Lessgusteoi
    I am German and I lived in Ireland in the eighties. Ireland with a history of penal laws (no catholic i.e. Irish allowed any higher education except the catholic priesthood) until the 19th century; no higher occupation allowed but mere reading and writing and Irish actually being deported in mass as slaves to the West Indies when the Brisith needed workers on their sugar plantations.
    I remember seeing in England "Irish" cups (handle on the inside) and hearing jokes about the Irish as being no good except for poetry and music. Apart from that appalingly stupid and prone to violence. Prone to violence they certainly were. And more so than the ENglish. I still have the scar on my forehead to prove it.
    I also remember a society where there were 8 public clocks in Galway (I lived there) and none of them worked. It was a society where men could not prove themselves unless as poets or musicians or priests. Exactly what the Brits had conditioned them for 300 years ago. All others with some ambition emigrated to the US.
    Why does that remind me of American blacks? Why would anybody ask? Furthermore my dear proponents of white superiorty I just tell you as a German: we have the greatest musical tradition in Old Europe. I am somewhat of a musician myself. At least I made a living playing music all around Europe when I was young. And just as a musician I want to tell you: whatever is unique abotu your music and whatever inspired the rest of the world is due to the influence of the men of two people who had no other way to prove themselves but through music:
    the Scots-IRish of the Appalachians and the descendants of African slaves. More the latter than the former. And if you want to listen to true genius listen to the "Cologne concerto" by Keith Jarrett. If you want to see the greatest art ever created look up the Bronze sculptues created in Ife in West Africa. Incidentally the homeland of the Igbo. Sure you never heard of them. Just google.
    The world is full of surprises. The Brits were surprised how the Irish made out in the US. I believe the world will yet be quite surprised how the Africans will make out

    the Scots-IRish of the Appalachians and the descendants of African slaves. More the latter than the former. And if you want to listen to true genius listen to the “Cologne concerto” by Keith Jarrett.

    I don’t know if you are claiming Jarrett as Scots-Irish or black, but he is neither.

    Linh Dinh talks about Germany’s worship of blacks here: http://www.unz.com/ldinh/black-and-blonde/

    Leni Riefenstahl worshipped the Sudanese after the war. The irony is the worship under National Socialism came from the same mindset. And it continues today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Ireland seems to lack a middle-class. You have a small snooty upper-class and then mass poverty throughout.

    The Celtic Tiger changed this though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Ireland tended to export its best and brightest, while Milwaukee or Detroit got the dullest Germans from the underclass.

    Germany never had an Australia but economically speaking a great many of the underclass shifted over to the Midwest beginning in the 1890′s-1930′s simply because those industrial cities would employ anyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I am German and I lived in Ireland in the eighties. Ireland with a history of penal laws (no catholic i.e. Irish allowed any higher education except the catholic priesthood) until the 19th century; no higher occupation allowed but mere reading and writing and Irish actually being deported in mass as slaves to the West Indies when the Brisith needed workers on their sugar plantations.
    I remember seeing in England “Irish” cups (handle on the inside) and hearing jokes about the Irish as being no good except for poetry and music. Apart from that appalingly stupid and prone to violence. Prone to violence they certainly were. And more so than the ENglish. I still have the scar on my forehead to prove it.
    I also remember a society where there were 8 public clocks in Galway (I lived there) and none of them worked. It was a society where men could not prove themselves unless as poets or musicians or priests. Exactly what the Brits had conditioned them for 300 years ago. All others with some ambition emigrated to the US.
    Why does that remind me of American blacks? Why would anybody ask? Furthermore my dear proponents of white superiorty I just tell you as a German: we have the greatest musical tradition in Old Europe. I am somewhat of a musician myself. At least I made a living playing music all around Europe when I was young. And just as a musician I want to tell you: whatever is unique abotu your music and whatever inspired the rest of the world is due to the influence of the men of two people who had no other way to prove themselves but through music:
    the Scots-IRish of the Appalachians and the descendants of African slaves. More the latter than the former. And if you want to listen to true genius listen to the “Cologne concerto” by Keith Jarrett. If you want to see the greatest art ever created look up the Bronze sculptues created in Ife in West Africa. Incidentally the homeland of the Igbo. Sure you never heard of them. Just google.
    The world is full of surprises. The Brits were surprised how the Irish made out in the US. I believe the world will yet be quite surprised how the Africans will make out

    Read More
    • Replies: @TelfoedJohn

    the Scots-IRish of the Appalachians and the descendants of African slaves. More the latter than the former. And if you want to listen to true genius listen to the “Cologne concerto” by Keith Jarrett.
     
    I don't know if you are claiming Jarrett as Scots-Irish or black, but he is neither.

    Linh Dinh talks about Germany's worship of blacks here: http://www.unz.com/ldinh/black-and-blonde/

    Leni Riefenstahl worshipped the Sudanese after the war. The irony is the worship under National Socialism came from the same mindset. And it continues today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I would believe that a math test and not scrabble would establish some psychometric gap between blacks and whites. Black Americans show a a fair degree of verbal dexterity and it is only in math scores that display any IQ difference.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Elsewhere Orwell referred to the crudity of wartime propaganda, which tended to have the effect of making thinking people sympathise with the enemy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Uebersetzer
    George Orwell, extract from "Second thoughts on James Burnham". To some extent it reflects his own contempt for English intellectuals, even though he was one, but it is another wrinkle in the IQ debate.
    "Suppose in 1940 you had taken a Gallup poll, in England, on the question ‘Will Germany win the war?’ You would have found, curiously enough, that the group answering ‘Yes’ contained a far higher percentage of intelligent people — people with IQ of over 120, shall we say — than the group answering ‘No’. The same would have held good in the middle of 1942. In this case the figures would not have been so striking, but if you had made the question ‘Will the Germans capture Alexandria?’ or ‘Will the Japanese be able to hold on to the territories they have captured?’, then once again there would have been a very marked tendency for intelligence to concentrate in the ‘Yes’ group. In every case the less-gifted person would have been likelier to give a right answer.
    If one went simply by these instances, one might assume that high intelligence and bad military judgement always go together. However, it is not so simple as that. The English intelligentsia, on the whole, were more defeatist than the mass of the people — and some of them went on being defeatist at a time when the war was quite plainly won — partly because they were better able to visualise the dreary years of warfare that lay ahead. Their morale was worse because their imaginations were stronger. The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."

    Another interpretation is that those of lower IQ, education, whatever, were more readily swayed by the Churchillian rhetoric and the media-dispensed propaganda, which promised eventual victory, whereas the more intellectual members of the community recognized the propaganda for what it was and overcompensated by adopting a unduly pessimistic view.

    In addition, many of those of the higher socio-economic strata in Britain were crypto-fascists and would not have been distressed to see something along the lines of Nazism come to Britain (P.G. Wodehouse for example, who Churchill said should be hanged and who never stepped foot on British territory after the war, or John Amery, son of Churchill’s cabinet colleague Leo Amery, who after the war was hanged for treason). Pessimism about the prospects for the Allies, may thus have been, in part, the result of wishful thinking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • George Orwell, extract from “Second thoughts on James Burnham”. To some extent it reflects his own contempt for English intellectuals, even though he was one, but it is another wrinkle in the IQ debate.
    “Suppose in 1940 you had taken a Gallup poll, in England, on the question ‘Will Germany win the war?’ You would have found, curiously enough, that the group answering ‘Yes’ contained a far higher percentage of intelligent people — people with IQ of over 120, shall we say — than the group answering ‘No’. The same would have held good in the middle of 1942. In this case the figures would not have been so striking, but if you had made the question ‘Will the Germans capture Alexandria?’ or ‘Will the Japanese be able to hold on to the territories they have captured?’, then once again there would have been a very marked tendency for intelligence to concentrate in the ‘Yes’ group. In every case the less-gifted person would have been likelier to give a right answer.
    If one went simply by these instances, one might assume that high intelligence and bad military judgement always go together. However, it is not so simple as that. The English intelligentsia, on the whole, were more defeatist than the mass of the people — and some of them went on being defeatist at a time when the war was quite plainly won — partly because they were better able to visualise the dreary years of warfare that lay ahead. Their morale was worse because their imaginations were stronger. The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Another interpretation is that those of lower IQ, education, whatever, were more readily swayed by the Churchillian rhetoric and the media-dispensed propaganda, which promised eventual victory, whereas the more intellectual members of the community recognized the propaganda for what it was and overcompensated by adopting a unduly pessimistic view.

    In addition, many of those of the higher socio-economic strata in Britain were crypto-fascists and would not have been distressed to see something along the lines of Nazism come to Britain (P.G. Wodehouse for example, who Churchill said should be hanged and who never stepped foot on British territory after the war, or John Amery, son of Churchill's cabinet colleague Leo Amery, who after the war was hanged for treason). Pessimism about the prospects for the Allies, may thus have been, in part, the result of wishful thinking.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • The PISA results for Turkey have given rise to comment that they show pupils there are the unhappiest of those tested, or at least among the unhappiest. The social stresses and strains in Turkey are undoubtedly a factor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gerhard
    Education does not always raise intelligence. I remember one study in Nigeria that showed no effect of education, but here the conclusion should be that the quality of schooling was so abysmal that the children were better off staying at home. When I interviewed older people in a backward part of the Caribbean, many of them mentioned spontaneously that education was not considered important when they were young. When economic development creates new opportunities, people realize that learning is important. If high-quality education is provided at that time, IQs will rise. If quality of education is low, as it is in most parts of Africa, IQ is stuck at about 70. I guess that of all the environmental effects that have driven the Flynn effect, better and longer schooling is responsible for perhaps half of it.

    What we should conclude from this is that the high IQs of modern societies are highly artificial. We live in a house of cards. We already see Flynn effects ending in the high-IQ countries. IQ seems to start declining in several Northern European countries, and economic growth and political stability are expected to follow. Of course this means that IQ gaps between countries are getting smaller. The PISA results show this for the 2000-2015 period. Every world region is going through the same curve of cognitive and economic development. In Africa the rise, plateau and decline phases will be delayed by more than a century relative to Europe, and the peak will most likely be lower. This is also happening in other developing countries. In a few years we may be able to better predict future trajectories of different world regions as we get better polygenic scores for IQ, educational attainment and similar traits, ones that are based on causal variants, not the GWAS hits that are merely linked to the causal variants.

    the conclusion should be that the quality of schooling [in Africa] was so abysmal that the children were better off staying at home

    In which connection:

    Uganda orders closure of [for profit] schools backed by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg

    Not only was the quality of the schooling abysmal but the relevance of the schooling probably minimal.

    The high IQs of modern societies are highly artificial.

    As I said, IQ is a cultural manifestation.

    IQ seems to start declining in several Northern European countries, and economic growth and political stability are expected to follow.

    Partly, I suggest because education is decreasingly useful to those at the lower margin of society, and partly because of dysgenic breeding behavior, e.g., welfare supported reproduction by the unemployed and often unemployable, while the promotion of girls’ education limits the fertility of the most intelligent.

    In contrast, in Africa, breeding success is still generally related to health, wit and beauty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy
    When you say,

    when people realized the importance of formal education and perfected its practice, did western populations reach the IQs that we are used to today.
     
    you would seem to imply that formal education invariably enhances human intelligence.

    This I very much doubt. During the 19th century, countries that were industrializing and urbanizing had a need for millions of clerks, and mechanics, people who could read with good comprehension, write with clarity and add up. Thus universal education in the West.

    IQ tests chiefly measure how well people have been educated, i.e., it assesses reading comprehension and numerical skills. However, in Africa, and throughout the world in most ages since the emergence of mankind, literacy and numeracy were of little or no importance compared with other mental skills.

    An IQ test thus measures what is essentially a cultural artifact: the mental competence of a K-12-educated Westerner as assessed on tests of competence in the Western environment. Raise European children in Soweto-type environment and I suspect they would perform on IQ tests about the same as black kids, just as black kids in Europe perform about as well as white kids.

    Equally, I suggest that an intelligence test developed by black African psychologists might prove that European kids are retarded compared with Africans.

    Education does not always raise intelligence. I remember one study in Nigeria that showed no effect of education, but here the conclusion should be that the quality of schooling was so abysmal that the children were better off staying at home. When I interviewed older people in a backward part of the Caribbean, many of them mentioned spontaneously that education was not considered important when they were young. When economic development creates new opportunities, people realize that learning is important. If high-quality education is provided at that time, IQs will rise. If quality of education is low, as it is in most parts of Africa, IQ is stuck at about 70. I guess that of all the environmental effects that have driven the Flynn effect, better and longer schooling is responsible for perhaps half of it.

    What we should conclude from this is that the high IQs of modern societies are highly artificial. We live in a house of cards. We already see Flynn effects ending in the high-IQ countries. IQ seems to start declining in several Northern European countries, and economic growth and political stability are expected to follow. Of course this means that IQ gaps between countries are getting smaller. The PISA results show this for the 2000-2015 period. Every world region is going through the same curve of cognitive and economic development. In Africa the rise, plateau and decline phases will be delayed by more than a century relative to Europe, and the peak will most likely be lower. This is also happening in other developing countries. In a few years we may be able to better predict future trajectories of different world regions as we get better polygenic scores for IQ, educational attainment and similar traits, ones that are based on causal variants, not the GWAS hits that are merely linked to the causal variants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    the conclusion should be that the quality of schooling [in Africa] was so abysmal that the children were better off staying at home
     
    In which connection:

    Uganda orders closure of [for profit] schools backed by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg

    Not only was the quality of the schooling abysmal but the relevance of the schooling probably minimal.


    The high IQs of modern societies are highly artificial.

     

    As I said, IQ is a cultural manifestation.

    IQ seems to start declining in several Northern European countries, and economic growth and political stability are expected to follow.
     
    Partly, I suggest because education is decreasingly useful to those at the lower margin of society, and partly because of dysgenic breeding behavior, e.g., welfare supported reproduction by the unemployed and often unemployable, while the promotion of girls' education limits the fertility of the most intelligent.

    In contrast, in Africa, breeding success is still generally related to health, wit and beauty.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    Therefore, color me skeptical.
     
    I was presenting a hypothesis.

    But I don't think it's a crazy hypothesis.

    Imagine you're in the the Congo or the Central African Republic. You're in the forest, there are poisonous snakes, insects and terrifying predators all around. You have lost your way and have no idea how to return to where you started. But you meet a native of the region whose acute awareness of the sights and sounds and smells of the jungle keep him safe. He has a life-time's experience navigating the forest, and knows exactly where he is and where he is going.

    So what are you going to do, ask the stranger to guide you to safety, or decide that there's no way this low IQ moron can save your skin?

    So the African Intelligence Test (AIT) would, presumably, include:

    jungle scenes in which to identify well-camouflaged lions, tigers, etc;

    audio files from which one would have to deduce whether the monkeys were chattering over the discovery of a bunch of coconuts or in panic at the sight of a snake;

    and olfactory tests requiring discrimination between the scent of a leopard and an elephant, or whatever.

    In addition, I guess there’d be a bunch of Scrabble-type questions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res

    Equally, I suggest that an intelligence test developed by black African psychologists might prove that European kids are retarded compared with Africans.
     
    This is an empirical question. If true it should be straightforward to offer an existence proof. Given all the effort at "gap closing" in the US I think anybody who actually did this would be lionized. Therefore, color me skeptical.

    Therefore, color me skeptical.

    I was presenting a hypothesis.

    But I don’t think it’s a crazy hypothesis.

    Imagine you’re in the the Congo or the Central African Republic. You’re in the forest, there are poisonous snakes, insects and terrifying predators all around. You have lost your way and have no idea how to return to where you started. But you meet a native of the region whose acute awareness of the sights and sounds and smells of the jungle keep him safe. He has a life-time’s experience navigating the forest, and knows exactly where he is and where he is going.

    So what are you going to do, ask the stranger to guide you to safety, or decide that there’s no way this low IQ moron can save your skin?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    So the African Intelligence Test (AIT) would, presumably, include:

    jungle scenes in which to identify well-camouflaged lions, tigers, etc;

    audio files from which one would have to deduce whether the monkeys were chattering over the discovery of a bunch of coconuts or in panic at the sight of a snake;

    and olfactory tests requiring discrimination between the scent of a leopard and an elephant, or whatever.

    In addition, I guess there'd be a bunch of Scrabble-type questions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • res says:
    @CanSpeccy
    When you say,

    when people realized the importance of formal education and perfected its practice, did western populations reach the IQs that we are used to today.
     
    you would seem to imply that formal education invariably enhances human intelligence.

    This I very much doubt. During the 19th century, countries that were industrializing and urbanizing had a need for millions of clerks, and mechanics, people who could read with good comprehension, write with clarity and add up. Thus universal education in the West.

    IQ tests chiefly measure how well people have been educated, i.e., it assesses reading comprehension and numerical skills. However, in Africa, and throughout the world in most ages since the emergence of mankind, literacy and numeracy were of little or no importance compared with other mental skills.

    An IQ test thus measures what is essentially a cultural artifact: the mental competence of a K-12-educated Westerner as assessed on tests of competence in the Western environment. Raise European children in Soweto-type environment and I suspect they would perform on IQ tests about the same as black kids, just as black kids in Europe perform about as well as white kids.

    Equally, I suggest that an intelligence test developed by black African psychologists might prove that European kids are retarded compared with Africans.

    Equally, I suggest that an intelligence test developed by black African psychologists might prove that European kids are retarded compared with Africans.

    This is an empirical question. If true it should be straightforward to offer an existence proof. Given all the effort at “gap closing” in the US I think anybody who actually did this would be lionized. Therefore, color me skeptical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Therefore, color me skeptical.
     
    I was presenting a hypothesis.

    But I don't think it's a crazy hypothesis.

    Imagine you're in the the Congo or the Central African Republic. You're in the forest, there are poisonous snakes, insects and terrifying predators all around. You have lost your way and have no idea how to return to where you started. But you meet a native of the region whose acute awareness of the sights and sounds and smells of the jungle keep him safe. He has a life-time's experience navigating the forest, and knows exactly where he is and where he is going.

    So what are you going to do, ask the stranger to guide you to safety, or decide that there's no way this low IQ moron can save your skin?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond

    It makes Feynman sound like the yahoo he surely was — someone with a good native intelligence, i.e., unschooled in literary and philosophical matters.
     
    I agree. But I would rate the "native intelligence" demonstrated well over 124. Would you not?

    This "native intelligence" is the intended referent of the g factor (or at least of the factor g sub f - or fluid intelligence. Do you think it is impossible to measure that factor or that for other reasons the effort has been a complete failure. How can you be sure that Feynman has "good native intelligence" yet deny that a good IQ test would probably say the same? I still don't understand your answer to this point, or to the fact that physicists emminent physicists usually have extraordinary verbal IQs?

    Are the correlations high or low. The correlations between abilities is high, as demonstrated by the high correlation of Verbal and Performance IQ on the WAIS. The correlation between separate test items looks low, but our issue concerns whether abilities in different domains are correlated, not whether their scores on specific tasks are highly correlated. Even the test - retest scores on the same item type will not be extremely high. In other words, short individual subtests are not highly reliable.

    The correlation between WAIS Verbal and Performance, is a good indication of the strength of a g factor because the relevant subtests contain few commonalities besides their form.

    You say that a correlation of .7 means less than 50% of the variability is accounted for. I think this is misleading. Variance is the square of standard deviation, which is the intuitively graspable concept of variability. Variance is adopted by statisticians because of its mathematical tractability. (Actually, average absolute deviation is a still more intuitive measure than standard deviation, but is mathematically very intractable.) The correlation coefficient is the more intuitive measure of degree of association than is r squared. (A .3 correlation is untuitively like 30% rather than 9%.)

    This “native intelligence” is the intended referent of the g factor

    The g factor, as I understand it, is a measure of correlation among alleged facets of intelligence that psychologists claim to measure. The mean correlation coefficient among those factors is around 0.3, meaning that, on average, less than 10% of the variation within a population in one factor is accounted for by variation in another factor. In other words, mental competence as it is measured by a battery of psychometric tests is usually highly variable among facets of intelligence. There is, therefore, nothing in the least bit surprising or interesting in the fact that although Feynman was unquestionably a mathematical genius he was a poor writer whose books, in all but about one case, were ghost-written.

    So no, for all your arm-twisting and hopelessly weak arguments, I see nothing odd in the report that Feynman’s IQ, as measured in high school, was 124, one point less (or was it more), than (by her own account) his sister (also a physicist), and one more than his son, Richard junior (by the account of Feynman’s wife as reported in on of the biographies — Gleick’s maybe).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Gerhard
    Just two points, one petty and the other substantive. The petty point is that the conclusion that "The African nominal IQs are artificially depressed by more than 30 IQ points due to an extremely deficient cognitive environment" is odd. The African cognitive environment is the "normal" cognitive environment for our species. Only in the last century, when people realized the importance of formal education and perfected its practice, did western populations reach the IQs that we are used to today. We are the freaks, not the Africans! Actually, based on the data I have seen, even an average African IQ of 70 is an overestimate. Representative population samples (not high school students or job applicants) generally score lower than that.

    More important is that according to most estimates, dysgenics has eroded the "genotypic IQ" of white Western populations by 5-8 points since the 19th century, perhaps even by more than 10 points. Most US studies have shown more dysgenics for Blacks than Whites, so US Blacks may easily have lost something like 10 or 12 points of genotypic IQ to dysgenics. Dysgenics usually starts when people start using contraception, which happened in Africa only during the last 20 or 30 years, so there has not yet been much of an effect in Africa. This explains why many native Africans do much better than African-Americans in many IQ-dependent tasks. The implication is that at this point in history the genotypic IQ differences between Whites and native Africans (but not African-Americans) are not nearly as large as some theorists seem to think.

    When you say,

    when people realized the importance of formal education and perfected its practice, did western populations reach the IQs that we are used to today.

    you would seem to imply that formal education invariably enhances human intelligence.

    This I very much doubt. During the 19th century, countries that were industrializing and urbanizing had a need for millions of clerks, and mechanics, people who could read with good comprehension, write with clarity and add up. Thus universal education in the West.

    IQ tests chiefly measure how well people have been educated, i.e., it assesses reading comprehension and numerical skills. However, in Africa, and throughout the world in most ages since the emergence of mankind, literacy and numeracy were of little or no importance compared with other mental skills.

    An IQ test thus measures what is essentially a cultural artifact: the mental competence of a K-12-educated Westerner as assessed on tests of competence in the Western environment. Raise European children in Soweto-type environment and I suspect they would perform on IQ tests about the same as black kids, just as black kids in Europe perform about as well as white kids.

    Equally, I suggest that an intelligence test developed by black African psychologists might prove that European kids are retarded compared with Africans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Equally, I suggest that an intelligence test developed by black African psychologists might prove that European kids are retarded compared with Africans.
     
    This is an empirical question. If true it should be straightforward to offer an existence proof. Given all the effort at "gap closing" in the US I think anybody who actually did this would be lionized. Therefore, color me skeptical.
    , @Gerhard
    Education does not always raise intelligence. I remember one study in Nigeria that showed no effect of education, but here the conclusion should be that the quality of schooling was so abysmal that the children were better off staying at home. When I interviewed older people in a backward part of the Caribbean, many of them mentioned spontaneously that education was not considered important when they were young. When economic development creates new opportunities, people realize that learning is important. If high-quality education is provided at that time, IQs will rise. If quality of education is low, as it is in most parts of Africa, IQ is stuck at about 70. I guess that of all the environmental effects that have driven the Flynn effect, better and longer schooling is responsible for perhaps half of it.

    What we should conclude from this is that the high IQs of modern societies are highly artificial. We live in a house of cards. We already see Flynn effects ending in the high-IQ countries. IQ seems to start declining in several Northern European countries, and economic growth and political stability are expected to follow. Of course this means that IQ gaps between countries are getting smaller. The PISA results show this for the 2000-2015 period. Every world region is going through the same curve of cognitive and economic development. In Africa the rise, plateau and decline phases will be delayed by more than a century relative to Europe, and the peak will most likely be lower. This is also happening in other developing countries. In a few years we may be able to better predict future trajectories of different world regions as we get better polygenic scores for IQ, educational attainment and similar traits, ones that are based on causal variants, not the GWAS hits that are merely linked to the causal variants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Just two points, one petty and the other substantive. The petty point is that the conclusion that “The African nominal IQs are artificially depressed by more than 30 IQ points due to an extremely deficient cognitive environment” is odd. The African cognitive environment is the “normal” cognitive environment for our species. Only in the last century, when people realized the importance of formal education and perfected its practice, did western populations reach the IQs that we are used to today. We are the freaks, not the Africans! Actually, based on the data I have seen, even an average African IQ of 70 is an overestimate. Representative population samples (not high school students or job applicants) generally score lower than that.

    More important is that according to most estimates, dysgenics has eroded the “genotypic IQ” of white Western populations by 5-8 points since the 19th century, perhaps even by more than 10 points. Most US studies have shown more dysgenics for Blacks than Whites, so US Blacks may easily have lost something like 10 or 12 points of genotypic IQ to dysgenics. Dysgenics usually starts when people start using contraception, which happened in Africa only during the last 20 or 30 years, so there has not yet been much of an effect in Africa. This explains why many native Africans do much better than African-Americans in many IQ-dependent tasks. The implication is that at this point in history the genotypic IQ differences between Whites and native Africans (but not African-Americans) are not nearly as large as some theorists seem to think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    When you say,

    when people realized the importance of formal education and perfected its practice, did western populations reach the IQs that we are used to today.
     
    you would seem to imply that formal education invariably enhances human intelligence.

    This I very much doubt. During the 19th century, countries that were industrializing and urbanizing had a need for millions of clerks, and mechanics, people who could read with good comprehension, write with clarity and add up. Thus universal education in the West.

    IQ tests chiefly measure how well people have been educated, i.e., it assesses reading comprehension and numerical skills. However, in Africa, and throughout the world in most ages since the emergence of mankind, literacy and numeracy were of little or no importance compared with other mental skills.

    An IQ test thus measures what is essentially a cultural artifact: the mental competence of a K-12-educated Westerner as assessed on tests of competence in the Western environment. Raise European children in Soweto-type environment and I suspect they would perform on IQ tests about the same as black kids, just as black kids in Europe perform about as well as white kids.

    Equally, I suggest that an intelligence test developed by black African psychologists might prove that European kids are retarded compared with Africans.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Good answers.

    You interlocutor, Diamond, committed the following statement: "That essay alone convinces me Feynman’s level of g is well above 124." which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion on the topic as somebody who adopted for himself a constructed reality based on reified notion of IQ test results. It is a cartoon 2-D world he lives and as a flatlander he may never know what he misses by rejecting other dimensions.

    “That essay alone convinces me Feynman’s level of g is well above 124.” which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion on the topic as somebody who adopted for himself a constructed reality based on reified notion of IQ test results.

    Amusing how readily folks here want to “disqualify” people. An idiot named “Rich” once posted that I must have a low IQ because he has never known someone to question IQ tests unless they had obtained a low score.

    CanSpeccy credits Feynman with good native intelligence. The question for the anti-g people is whether an emminent physicist could lack good “native” general intelligence. I say no. Perhaps that convicts me of reification, but I’m waiting for a conterexample.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy
    Um, er, well ....

    Well, the correlation between verbal and math SAT is almost .7. (And this with restricted range!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy
    "which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion ..."

    Well, after taking a look at the essay, your comment made me smile. The essay, actually a commencement address (here) , is characteristic Feynman. It's basically illiterate, but it's also lively. It contains some sense, and some nonsense. It makes Feynman sound like the yahoo he surely was — someone with a good native intelligence, i.e., unschooled in literary and philosophical matters.

    In a good mood, I imagine he was good company. But he was moody, and could, by his own account, be deeply annoyed at interruptions. He was a classic obsessive, able to think deeply about things that interested him, i.e., challenging problems in physics. A man, in other words, of apparently very one-sided development.

    But I'd concede to Stephen something like a 0.3 correlation between his verbal and his math intelligence, i.e., essential none.

    It makes Feynman sound like the yahoo he surely was — someone with a good native intelligence, i.e., unschooled in literary and philosophical matters.

    I agree. But I would rate the “native intelligence” demonstrated well over 124. Would you not?

    This “native intelligence” is the intended referent of the g factor (or at least of the factor g sub f – or fluid intelligence. Do you think it is impossible to measure that factor or that for other reasons the effort has been a complete failure. How can you be sure that Feynman has “good native intelligence” yet deny that a good IQ test would probably say the same? I still don’t understand your answer to this point, or to the fact that physicists emminent physicists usually have extraordinary verbal IQs?

    Are the correlations high or low. The correlations between abilities is high, as demonstrated by the high correlation of Verbal and Performance IQ on the WAIS. The correlation between separate test items looks low, but our issue concerns whether abilities in different domains are correlated, not whether their scores on specific tasks are highly correlated. Even the test – retest scores on the same item type will not be extremely high. In other words, short individual subtests are not highly reliable.

    The correlation between WAIS Verbal and Performance, is a good indication of the strength of a g factor because the relevant subtests contain few commonalities besides their form.

    You say that a correlation of .7 means less than 50% of the variability is accounted for. I think this is misleading. Variance is the square of standard deviation, which is the intuitively graspable concept of variability. Variance is adopted by statisticians because of its mathematical tractability. (Actually, average absolute deviation is a still more intuitive measure than standard deviation, but is mathematically very intractable.) The correlation coefficient is the more intuitive measure of degree of association than is r squared. (A .3 correlation is untuitively like 30% rather than 9%.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    This “native intelligence” is the intended referent of the g factor
     
    The g factor, as I understand it, is a measure of correlation among alleged facets of intelligence that psychologists claim to measure. The mean correlation coefficient among those factors is around 0.3, meaning that, on average, less than 10% of the variation within a population in one factor is accounted for by variation in another factor. In other words, mental competence as it is measured by a battery of psychometric tests is usually highly variable among facets of intelligence. There is, therefore, nothing in the least bit surprising or interesting in the fact that although Feynman was unquestionably a mathematical genius he was a poor writer whose books, in all but about one case, were ghost-written.

    So no, for all your arm-twisting and hopelessly weak arguments, I see nothing odd in the report that Feynman's IQ, as measured in high school, was 124, one point less (or was it more), than (by her own account) his sister (also a physicist), and one more than his son, Richard junior (by the account of Feynman's wife as reported in on of the biographies — Gleick's maybe).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In most pictures I have seen of African classrooms, the language on the blackboard is either English or French. In East Africa it may sometimes be Swahili, but even this is a second language for most of its users, not a first language.
    A somewhat analogous situation exists for Arabic speakers – written Arabic is dramatically different from, and more complicated grammatically than the various spoken dialects of Arabic. To become literate in Arabic for an Arabic speaker is a little bit like an Italian having to learn Spanish in order to read and write. This tends to hold literacy down in the Arab world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Africans just have higher participation on this American word game, despite their alarmingly low literacy rates

    Again, when speaking about African low literacy one must always bear in mind that African literacy = literacy in a foreign language. If we count how many Americans can read and write in German or French, the rate of “American literacy” would be as much as appallingly “African”.

    When one speaks about low achievements of Africans in various fields from literacy and beyond, one has to make allowance for them, because they must struggle with a foreign language their whole lives, while most developed countries have enjoyed their native languages. Even tiny Slovenia can enjoy using its language from school to university and everywhere else in their life. Imagine how could perform in their lives, say, Germans, should they have to learn Chinese to do anything above potato-growing and goat-herding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • As a language lover who knows a thing or two about languages I’ll provide you another perspective. Discussing Scrabble both sides ignore one crucial if not the most important point: Scrabble championships are carried in English and French, but these languages are foreign to Africans. Just to imagine the situation in which Africans are living: imagine if in the USA the only state language is German (and it might have happened according to one legend), everything around in German from street signs to official documents, from ads to newspapers and books, from radio and TV to the Internet, schools and universities are in German, all state officials speak German, etc., etc., while the majority of the population speak English, Spanish, Polish and whatnot, but they do not use their languages in their writings at all (except in primary school and some limited areas). And in such a situation imagine that Americans would compete in German Scrabble with Germans and Austrians whose native language is German and who speak it 100% of their everyday life from their early childhood. Or a more simple example. Imagine if the champions in English Scrabble would be the French speakers from Quebec for whom English is a foreign language, or vice versa. Note these comparisons are somewhat not fair as all the mentioned languages are related, so for an English speaker German is relatively simple compared to all the Africans whose languages has absolutely nothing to do with any European language.

    So having such a great initial disadvantage any success of Africans in both Scrabble in foreign for them English and French and in academics which they also must conduct in foreign languages is indeed if not surprising but puzzling.

    But consider also if IQ tests are criticized to be culturally relativist then Scrabbles are culturally relativist in absolute terms.

    P.S. I suppose the author could describe his personal linguistic experience himself. I bet his native language is not English. Bad that Africans stick to phoney civil nationalism and they always say like they are “Zambian” or “Nigerian” (phoney artificial nations, like 95% of the African countries), but rarely they will say from what real nation (ethnic group) they are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res

    But I’d concede to Stephen something like a 0.3 correlation between his verbal and his math intelligence, i.e., essential none.
     
    Perhaps you could explain how you derive a correlation between a single person's verbal and math intelligence? What would be example numbers indicating a 0.3 correlation (say your estimates for Feynman?) and how do you compute it?

    Um, er, well ….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Well, the correlation between verbal and math SAT is almost .7. (And this with restricted range!)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res

    But I’d concede to Stephen something like a 0.3 correlation between his verbal and his math intelligence, i.e., essential none.
     
    Perhaps you could explain how you derive a correlation between a single person's verbal and math intelligence? What would be example numbers indicating a 0.3 correlation (say your estimates for Feynman?) and how do you compute it?

    Good catch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    “In elementary school, the correlation between IQ and grades and achievement scores is between .60 and .70. “
     
    During the twentieth century most indoor jobs were of the bureaucratic/clerical sub-managerial kind. For those positions reading, writing and arithmetic were the essential requirements. Hence IQ tests, based primarily on reading comprehension, verbal reasoning and elementary arithmetic worked quite as a selection tool. But that doesn't make IQ the measure of intelligence. It just indicates whether you can read and add up.

    But that doesn’t make IQ the measure of intelligence

    I disagree here, sound too dramatic statement, IQ measure intelligence, period, but not analyse intelligence, in my view, analysis is fundamental when we are talking about a very complex and diverse entity as intelligence.

    IQ don’t measure creativity and rationality, AGAIN, two of the most important cognitive features humans invariably tend to have.

    It’s a incomplete but still useful way to access intelligence.

    IQ by self-evident reasons don’t measure quality, even every quantification in the end of the day must measure quality, more or less, anyway. And quality tend to be better accessed via individual approach.

    If IQ don’t measure rationality so it can’t predict how rational/reasonable will be in the real world, even predict. IQ can predict about verbal, math and spatial stuff, but about creativity and rationality, IQ just correlates. Prediction is not correlation, even prediction is also a type of correlation.

    What make IQ a very remarkable tool is its capacity to measure fairly well, when well applied, thousand, million people. It’s a facility of psychology work.

    What seems at in the core of intelligence is: perceptual capacity, aka, connect the dots. IQ tend to be little nasty with people with very well developed specific skills.

    Pattern recognition is not exactly the real or complete factor G of intelligence, but the correct pattern recognition. So, we can have a person with reasonable or even below average general cognitive skills but with remarkable talent in some very specific areas. This people, IQ simply can’t access, or maybe this talent can be observed via some substest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy
    "which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion ..."

    Well, after taking a look at the essay, your comment made me smile. The essay, actually a commencement address (here) , is characteristic Feynman. It's basically illiterate, but it's also lively. It contains some sense, and some nonsense. It makes Feynman sound like the yahoo he surely was — someone with a good native intelligence, i.e., unschooled in literary and philosophical matters.

    In a good mood, I imagine he was good company. But he was moody, and could, by his own account, be deeply annoyed at interruptions. He was a classic obsessive, able to think deeply about things that interested him, i.e., challenging problems in physics. A man, in other words, of apparently very one-sided development.

    But I'd concede to Stephen something like a 0.3 correlation between his verbal and his math intelligence, i.e., essential none.

    But I’d concede to Stephen something like a 0.3 correlation between his verbal and his math intelligence, i.e., essential none.

    Perhaps you could explain how you derive a correlation between a single person’s verbal and math intelligence? What would be example numbers indicating a 0.3 correlation (say your estimates for Feynman?) and how do you compute it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Good catch.
    , @CanSpeccy
    Um, er, well ....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    "In psychological research, we use Cohen's (1988) conventions to interpret effect size. A correlation coefficient of .10 is thought to represent a weak or small association; a correlation coefficient of .30 is considered a moderate correlation; and a correlation coefficient of .50 or larger is thought to represent a strong or large correlation."

    BIg Five personalities together explain 14% of school performance. wikipedia: "In elementary school, the correlation between IQ and grades and achievement scores is between .60 and .70. ", ie explaining at least twice as much of the variance. Later the correlation drops, because, as wikipedia states correctly, range restriction.

    It's also quite interesting that correlation would be explained by "common factors" like (a) reading skills, familiarity with test format (b) speed processing (c) working memory. (a) cannot be possible, as there is very high correlation between subtests such as progressive matrices and vocabulary tests; (b) reflects quality of nervous system, ie postulates that "g" actually exists; (c) cannot explain correlations between reaction times and, for example, mental rotation (and while correlation are bigger for more complicated tasks than for simpler tasks).


    Moreover: (wikipedia)
    "There is a high correlation of .90 to .95 between the prestige rankings of occupations, as rated by the general population, and the average general intelligence scores of people employed in each occupation. At the level of individual employees, the association between job prestige and g is lower – one large U.S. study reported a correlation of .65"
    I.e. practically whole variation of the "prestige" is explained by average "g" alone.

    Moreover: (wikipedia)
    "Research indicates that tests of g are the best single predictors of job performance, with an average validity coefficient of .55 across several meta-analyses of studies based on supervisor ratings and job samples. The average meta-analytic validity coefficient for performance in job training is .63.[66] The validity of g in the highest complexity jobs (professional, scientific, and upper management jobs) has been found to be greater than in the lowest complexity jobs, but g has predictive validity even for the simplest jobs. Research also shows that specific aptitude tests tailored for each job provide little or no increase in predictive validity over tests of general intelligence."
    I.e. yes, only 30% of variance explained, but still is THE BEST predictor and specific tests provide no additional benefits over simple IQ test.


    Also, not really related, butto show that "threshold hypothesis" for scrabble is not ad-hoc idea and similarly IQ thresholds may be required elsewhere and after meeting the threshold, no futher correlation is found between iq and the trait:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183/

    "When investigating a liberal criterion of ideational originality (i.e., two original ideas), a threshold was detected at around 100 IQ points. In contrast, a threshold of 120 IQ points emerged when the criterion was more demanding (i.e., many original ideas). Moreover, an IQ of around 85 IQ points was found to form the threshold for a purely quantitative measure of creative potential (i.e., ideational fluency). These results confirm the threshold hypothesis for qualitative indicators of creative potential and may explain some of the observed discrepancies in previous research. In addition, we obtained evidence that once the intelligence threshold is met, personality factors become more predictive for creativity. On the contrary, no threshold was found for creative achievement, i.e. creative achievement benefits from higher intelligence even at fairly high levels of intellectual ability."
     

    “In elementary school, the correlation between IQ and grades and achievement scores is between .60 and .70. “

    During the twentieth century most indoor jobs were of the bureaucratic/clerical sub-managerial kind. For those positions reading, writing and arithmetic were the essential requirements. Hence IQ tests, based primarily on reading comprehension, verbal reasoning and elementary arithmetic worked quite as a selection tool. But that doesn’t make IQ the measure of intelligence. It just indicates whether you can read and add up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    But that doesn’t make IQ the measure of intelligence
     
    I disagree here, sound too dramatic statement, IQ measure intelligence, period, but not analyse intelligence, in my view, analysis is fundamental when we are talking about a very complex and diverse entity as intelligence.

    IQ don't measure creativity and rationality, AGAIN, two of the most important cognitive features humans invariably tend to have.

    It's a incomplete but still useful way to access intelligence.

    IQ by self-evident reasons don't measure quality, even every quantification in the end of the day must measure quality, more or less, anyway. And quality tend to be better accessed via individual approach.

    If IQ don't measure rationality so it can't predict how rational/reasonable will be in the real world, even predict. IQ can predict about verbal, math and spatial stuff, but about creativity and rationality, IQ just correlates. Prediction is not correlation, even prediction is also a type of correlation.

    What make IQ a very remarkable tool is its capacity to measure fairly well, when well applied, thousand, million people. It's a facility of psychology work.

    What seems at in the core of intelligence is: perceptual capacity, aka, connect the dots. IQ tend to be little nasty with people with very well developed specific skills.

    Pattern recognition is not exactly the real or complete factor G of intelligence, but the correct pattern recognition. So, we can have a person with reasonable or even below average general cognitive skills but with remarkable talent in some very specific areas. This people, IQ simply can't access, or maybe this talent can be observed via some substest.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “In psychological research, we use Cohen’s (1988) conventions to interpret effect size. A correlation coefficient of .10 is thought to represent a weak or small association; a correlation coefficient of .30 is considered a moderate correlation; and a correlation coefficient of .50 or larger is thought to represent a strong or large correlation.”

    BIg Five personalities together explain 14% of school performance. wikipedia: “In elementary school, the correlation between IQ and grades and achievement scores is between .60 and .70. “, ie explaining at least twice as much of the variance. Later the correlation drops, because, as wikipedia states correctly, range restriction.

    It’s also quite interesting that correlation would be explained by “common factors” like (a) reading skills, familiarity with test format (b) speed processing (c) working memory. (a) cannot be possible, as there is very high correlation between subtests such as progressive matrices and vocabulary tests; (b) reflects quality of nervous system, ie postulates that “g” actually exists; (c) cannot explain correlations between reaction times and, for example, mental rotation (and while correlation are bigger for more complicated tasks than for simpler tasks).

    [MORE]

    Moreover: (wikipedia)
    “There is a high correlation of .90 to .95 between the prestige rankings of occupations, as rated by the general population, and the average general intelligence scores of people employed in each occupation. At the level of individual employees, the association between job prestige and g is lower – one large U.S. study reported a correlation of .65″
    I.e. practically whole variation of the “prestige” is explained by average “g” alone.

    Moreover: (wikipedia)
    “Research indicates that tests of g are the best single predictors of job performance, with an average validity coefficient of .55 across several meta-analyses of studies based on supervisor ratings and job samples. The average meta-analytic validity coefficient for performance in job training is .63.[66] The validity of g in the highest complexity jobs (professional, scientific, and upper management jobs) has been found to be greater than in the lowest complexity jobs, but g has predictive validity even for the simplest jobs. Research also shows that specific aptitude tests tailored for each job provide little or no increase in predictive validity over tests of general intelligence.”
    I.e. yes, only 30% of variance explained, but still is THE BEST predictor and specific tests provide no additional benefits over simple IQ test.

    Also, not really related, butto show that “threshold hypothesis” for scrabble is not ad-hoc idea and similarly IQ thresholds may be required elsewhere and after meeting the threshold, no futher correlation is found between iq and the trait:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183/

    “When investigating a liberal criterion of ideational originality (i.e., two original ideas), a threshold was detected at around 100 IQ points. In contrast, a threshold of 120 IQ points emerged when the criterion was more demanding (i.e., many original ideas). Moreover, an IQ of around 85 IQ points was found to form the threshold for a purely quantitative measure of creative potential (i.e., ideational fluency). These results confirm the threshold hypothesis for qualitative indicators of creative potential and may explain some of the observed discrepancies in previous research. In addition, we obtained evidence that once the intelligence threshold is met, personality factors become more predictive for creativity. On the contrary, no threshold was found for creative achievement, i.e. creative achievement benefits from higher intelligence even at fairly high levels of intellectual ability.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    “In elementary school, the correlation between IQ and grades and achievement scores is between .60 and .70. “
     
    During the twentieth century most indoor jobs were of the bureaucratic/clerical sub-managerial kind. For those positions reading, writing and arithmetic were the essential requirements. Hence IQ tests, based primarily on reading comprehension, verbal reasoning and elementary arithmetic worked quite as a selection tool. But that doesn't make IQ the measure of intelligence. It just indicates whether you can read and add up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Good answers.

    You interlocutor, Diamond, committed the following statement: "That essay alone convinces me Feynman’s level of g is well above 124." which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion on the topic as somebody who adopted for himself a constructed reality based on reified notion of IQ test results. It is a cartoon 2-D world he lives and as a flatlander he may never know what he misses by rejecting other dimensions.

    “which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion …”

    Well, after taking a look at the essay, your comment made me smile. The essay, actually a commencement address (here) , is characteristic Feynman. It’s basically illiterate, but it’s also lively. It contains some sense, and some nonsense. It makes Feynman sound like the yahoo he surely was — someone with a good native intelligence, i.e., unschooled in literary and philosophical matters.

    In a good mood, I imagine he was good company. But he was moody, and could, by his own account, be deeply annoyed at interruptions. He was a classic obsessive, able to think deeply about things that interested him, i.e., challenging problems in physics. A man, in other words, of apparently very one-sided development.

    But I’d concede to Stephen something like a 0.3 correlation between his verbal and his math intelligence, i.e., essential none.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    But I’d concede to Stephen something like a 0.3 correlation between his verbal and his math intelligence, i.e., essential none.
     
    Perhaps you could explain how you derive a correlation between a single person's verbal and math intelligence? What would be example numbers indicating a 0.3 correlation (say your estimates for Feynman?) and how do you compute it?
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    It makes Feynman sound like the yahoo he surely was — someone with a good native intelligence, i.e., unschooled in literary and philosophical matters.
     
    I agree. But I would rate the "native intelligence" demonstrated well over 124. Would you not?

    This "native intelligence" is the intended referent of the g factor (or at least of the factor g sub f - or fluid intelligence. Do you think it is impossible to measure that factor or that for other reasons the effort has been a complete failure. How can you be sure that Feynman has "good native intelligence" yet deny that a good IQ test would probably say the same? I still don't understand your answer to this point, or to the fact that physicists emminent physicists usually have extraordinary verbal IQs?

    Are the correlations high or low. The correlations between abilities is high, as demonstrated by the high correlation of Verbal and Performance IQ on the WAIS. The correlation between separate test items looks low, but our issue concerns whether abilities in different domains are correlated, not whether their scores on specific tasks are highly correlated. Even the test - retest scores on the same item type will not be extremely high. In other words, short individual subtests are not highly reliable.

    The correlation between WAIS Verbal and Performance, is a good indication of the strength of a g factor because the relevant subtests contain few commonalities besides their form.

    You say that a correlation of .7 means less than 50% of the variability is accounted for. I think this is misleading. Variance is the square of standard deviation, which is the intuitively graspable concept of variability. Variance is adopted by statisticians because of its mathematical tractability. (Actually, average absolute deviation is a still more intuitive measure than standard deviation, but is mathematically very intractable.) The correlation coefficient is the more intuitive measure of degree of association than is r squared. (A .3 correlation is untuitively like 30% rather than 9%.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    If you speak of native intelligence, then you are speaking of a unitary factor: individuals can be ranked on it.
     
    Rubbish.

    I know what I am speaking about. And as far as I am concerned, native intelligence is unschooled intelligence, which as it happens, is consistent with the dictionary definition.

    What you don't grasp is that when people speak of intelligence, they are usually referring to some particular aptitude or accomplishment, but not to the exclusion of all other types of aptitude or accomplishment. One might say Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 21 in C proves that he was a person of great intelligence, as indeed he was, but no one would claim on that basis that Mozart could necessarily have been a literary genius or that he might have shown comparable intellectual eminence in the sciences, the visual arts or any other field.


    Well, this is the essence of the question: are they well correlated?
     
    Contrary to your claim, they are not. Zero point seven is the max., while the mean among measured aptitudes is 0.3 or there abouts, which means that on average, variation within the population in one variable accounts for less than 10% (r-squared) of the variation in another variable. You can see that in the correlation matrix I have posted here.

    Of course there will be some common factor. To complete an IQ test you have to be able to read and understand the questions, that's before you apply whatever special skill the question deals with. In addition things like short-term memory and processing speed my give rise to some correlation among aptitudes. But what stands out is the fact that relative scores on the various tests show almost complete independence.

    The common factor, g, is no more than a triviality.

    Good answers.

    You interlocutor, Diamond, committed the following statement: “That essay alone convinces me Feynman’s level of g is well above 124.” which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion on the topic as somebody who adopted for himself a constructed reality based on reified notion of IQ test results. It is a cartoon 2-D world he lives and as a flatlander he may never know what he misses by rejecting other dimensions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    "which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion ..."

    Well, after taking a look at the essay, your comment made me smile. The essay, actually a commencement address (here) , is characteristic Feynman. It's basically illiterate, but it's also lively. It contains some sense, and some nonsense. It makes Feynman sound like the yahoo he surely was — someone with a good native intelligence, i.e., unschooled in literary and philosophical matters.

    In a good mood, I imagine he was good company. But he was moody, and could, by his own account, be deeply annoyed at interruptions. He was a classic obsessive, able to think deeply about things that interested him, i.e., challenging problems in physics. A man, in other words, of apparently very one-sided development.

    But I'd concede to Stephen something like a 0.3 correlation between his verbal and his math intelligence, i.e., essential none.

    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    “That essay alone convinces me Feynman’s level of g is well above 124.” which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion on the topic as somebody who adopted for himself a constructed reality based on reified notion of IQ test results.
     
    Amusing how readily folks here want to "disqualify" people. An idiot named "Rich" once posted that I must have a low IQ because he has never known someone to question IQ tests unless they had obtained a low score.

    CanSpeccy credits Feynman with good native intelligence. The question for the anti-g people is whether an emminent physicist could lack good "native" general intelligence. I say no. Perhaps that convicts me of reification, but I'm waiting for a conterexample.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If you speak of native intelligence, then you are speaking of a unitary factor: individuals can be ranked on it.

    Rubbish.

    I know what I am speaking about. And as far as I am concerned, native intelligence is unschooled intelligence, which as it happens, is consistent with the dictionary definition.

    What you don’t grasp is that when people speak of intelligence, they are usually referring to some particular aptitude or accomplishment, but not to the exclusion of all other types of aptitude or accomplishment. One might say Mozart’s Piano Concerto No. 21 in C proves that he was a person of great intelligence, as indeed he was, but no one would claim on that basis that Mozart could necessarily have been a literary genius or that he might have shown comparable intellectual eminence in the sciences, the visual arts or any other field.

    Well, this is the essence of the question: are they well correlated?

    Contrary to your claim, they are not. Zero point seven is the max., while the mean among measured aptitudes is 0.3 or there abouts, which means that on average, variation within the population in one variable accounts for less than 10% (r-squared) of the variation in another variable. You can see that in the correlation matrix I have posted here.

    Of course there will be some common factor. To complete an IQ test you have to be able to read and understand the questions, that’s before you apply whatever special skill the question deals with. In addition things like short-term memory and processing speed my give rise to some correlation among aptitudes. But what stands out is the fact that relative scores on the various tests show almost complete independence.

    The common factor, g, is no more than a triviality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Good answers.

    You interlocutor, Diamond, committed the following statement: "That essay alone convinces me Feynman’s level of g is well above 124." which in my world completely disqualifies him for further discussion on the topic as somebody who adopted for himself a constructed reality based on reified notion of IQ test results. It is a cartoon 2-D world he lives and as a flatlander he may never know what he misses by rejecting other dimensions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    If you agree there’s such a thing as “native intelligence,” why do you reject g (which is conceived as just that).
     
    native intelligence: sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like.

    As defined, native intelligence has nothing to do with Jensen's g, which "arises from the empirical fact that scores on various cognitive tests are positively correlated in the population"

    But correlated poorly, because they are more or less independent variables, which is why a math genius such as Feynman can have a modest IQ of 125, his mathematical gift being unmatch by other faculties.

    native intelligence: sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like.

    As defined, native intelligence has nothing to do with Jensen’s g,

    It’s the same concept. If you speak of native intelligence, then you are speaking of a unitary factor: individuals can be ranked on it.

    In essence, you’re saying there’s a factor of general intelligence, but IQ tests fail to measure it.

    But correlated poorly, because they are more or less independent variables, which is why a math genius such as Feynman can have a modest IQ of 125, his mathematical gift being unmatch by other faculties.

    Well, this is the essence of the question: are they well correlated? But in fact, the correlation between two very different measures of IQ, verbal and performance, correlate .7 rebuts your claim.

    You are putting an awful lot of emphasis on Feynman, a single example, for a claim you recognize as statistical. We don’t even know what test Feynman got this score on. One major possibility is that it was the California Test of Mental Maturity, often administered in grade school, which includes as items hands placed in different positions with the task of saying whether it’s a right or left hand. If he scored very poorly on that section, it could have dragged his score way down if he suffered from dyslexia.

    Yet you ignore the vast evidence that physicists are very high in general intelligence. The classic study is Roe’s where eminent physicists scored around 160 on a Verbal intelligence measure.

    I think potential counter-examples like Feynman are interesting because the theory of g is more than an assertion of positive manifold. With plausible elaboration, it would hold that it’s impossible to have what amounts to a savant physicist. I don’t know for sure that’s the case, but I don’t think it is. If Feynman really were intellectually mediocre, I would find that a convincing argument against g.

    Here’s another bit of evidence about Feynman. He wrote an essay “Cargo Cult Science” that you’ve probably read. This isn’t about physics or math (side note: math talent alone doesn’t make a great theoretical physicist.) That essay alone convinces me Feynman’s level of g is well above 124.

    One more thought. You posted that Feynman rejected taxonomies. Well, theories of the structure of intellect are taxonomies (of abilities).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bliss

    I would say the lowest IQ estimation for SSA are untenable. However, Wicherts et al once estimated African IQ to be much higher, in range of American Blacks (lower 80s).
     
    Of course the IQ estimation for SSA that HBD racists get off on is untenable. Whites with that IQ are literally drooling retards, but blacks are not?

    If as you write, Wicherts at al estimate the correct African IQ to be in the low 80s, that puts Africans on par with Arabs, Persians, Indians etc. The average IQ of Syrians for example is 79 according to Lynn, thus lower than Wicherts estimate for sub Saharan Africans. Note that Syrians and their fellow Levantines the Lebanese are the whitest of the arabs.

    Of course the IQ estimation for SSA that HBD racists get off on is untenable. Whites with that IQ are literally drooling retards, but blacks are not?

    Humanids [first human beings] is likely would score around ~50 60* They were retarded*

    White and east asian people with very lower IQ has been strongly des-selected while in other hand ”IQ around 100” has been strongly selected [caused ''civilization''] resulting in this situation.

    The idea of mental retardation only via IQ as if score 100 has been the norm since always is stupid of course.

    What is recessive and potentially damage for group Y may not be for group X.

    Different evolutionary stories, different profiles.

    Average 90 whites are on avg very similar to average 90 blacks** Namely in cognition, ;)

    Or this differences in the same IQ range is not only among very lower range*

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Bliss

    I would say the lowest IQ estimation for SSA are untenable. However, Wicherts et al once estimated African IQ to be much higher, in range of American Blacks (lower 80s).
     
    Of course the IQ estimation for SSA that HBD racists get off on is untenable. Whites with that IQ are literally drooling retards, but blacks are not?

    If as you write, Wicherts at al estimate the correct African IQ to be in the low 80s, that puts Africans on par with Arabs, Persians, Indians etc. The average IQ of Syrians for example is 79 according to Lynn, thus lower than Wicherts estimate for sub Saharan Africans. Note that Syrians and their fellow Levantines the Lebanese are the whitest of the arabs.

    Well, if you assign IQ80s to SSA, you are HBDer too, just non-racist one, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    I would say the lowest IQ estimation for SSA are untenable. However, Wicherts et al once estimated African IQ to be much higher, in range of American Blacks (lower 80s). Taking that into account, and allowing for SD higher than 12 would allow theoretically for Gabon players (if scrabble would be national sport played pretty much by everyone, from the kids on the streets to the elders on their deathbeds).

    However, the fact that average top scrabble players in Europe or America may have IQ of 140 does not mean one need IQ of 140 to be a top player; in chess, IIRC, correlation between IQ and chess ability goes down with top players. In one study (quoted by Grabner et al) expert chess players (ELO up to 2400, ie Kenny Solomon is within that range) had average 115 in IQ subscales, while mere 106 in overal general intelligence. Grabner found that the highest intelligence of top chess player was 144 and, in contrast, he found significant correlation, with "g" explaining something like one third of the variance in ELO rating. That means that not every GM chess player has to have 140 IQ. In other study however, Bilalic McLeod 2010, the correlation between IQ and skill disappeared amongst the top players (with average IQ in range of 130s) - though the size of the sample was very small.


    "When an elite subsample of 23 children was tested, it turned out that intelligence was not a significant factor in chess skill, and that, if anything, it tended to correlate negatively with chess skill."
     
    As scrabble requires intelligence, but also a lot of memorizing, it means it may tap more on some sub-scale of general intelligence AND that's why I think the assumption that top players HAVE to be 140 is unguaranteed (in general). After all, it were the American players which were tested, not the African ones.

    With threshold 130, and Wicherts higher IQ estimation, you can get 1 in ten thousand top players even with SD 12.

    One have to wonder, however: what if there are african subpopulations with IQ significantly higher than neighbouring population, similarly to Jewish Ashkenazis? That still would mean the lowest estimations of IQ in places like Gabon are way too low, but if there would be say a small population like 10% of Gabon's population, it would effectively almost double the number of potential players.

    I will repeat myself, however: with plenty of evidence pointing in one direction, and one or two (though very good) pieces of evidence pointing into the other direction, you have to be forgiving that people are not immedietely convinced.

    I would say the lowest IQ estimation for SSA are untenable. However, Wicherts et al once estimated African IQ to be much higher, in range of American Blacks (lower 80s).

    Of course the IQ estimation for SSA that HBD racists get off on is untenable. Whites with that IQ are literally drooling retards, but blacks are not?

    If as you write, Wicherts at al estimate the correct African IQ to be in the low 80s, that puts Africans on par with Arabs, Persians, Indians etc. The average IQ of Syrians for example is 79 according to Lynn, thus lower than Wicherts estimate for sub Saharan Africans. Note that Syrians and their fellow Levantines the Lebanese are the whitest of the arabs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Well, if you assign IQ80s to SSA, you are HBDer too, just non-racist one, right?
    , @Santoculto

    Of course the IQ estimation for SSA that HBD racists get off on is untenable. Whites with that IQ are literally drooling retards, but blacks are not?
     
    Humanids [first human beings] is likely would score around ~50 60* They were retarded*

    White and east asian people with very lower IQ has been strongly des-selected while in other hand ''IQ around 100'' has been strongly selected [caused ''civilization''] resulting in this situation.

    The idea of mental retardation only via IQ as if score 100 has been the norm since always is stupid of course.

    What is recessive and potentially damage for group Y may not be for group X.

    Different evolutionary stories, different profiles.

    Average 90 whites are on avg very similar to average 90 blacks** Namely in cognition, ;)

    Or this differences in the same IQ range is not only among very lower range*

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I have just read Dr Thompson post about the latest brain scan study, which detected difference in spatial abilities equivalent to 6IQ points.

    Now: remember there are more boys than girls. 1.08 to 1.05 boys are born for every girl.

    Let’s reasonably assume 1.03 teenage boy for every teenage girl
    Let’s assume that part of being good at scrabble requires spatial abilities (confirmed by the studies claiming scrabble requires “spatial reasoning”).
    Let’s assume difference equivalent to 6 IQ points, with girls 97 boys 103 and SD for boys 15, and for girls 14.

    At IQ=130, there would be 3.9 boys for every girl. , meaning 80% of winners in scrabble would be boys, _without_ taking into account the fixation needed for training at scrabble, knack of boys for competition, and without taking self-selection (i.e. to whom scrabble may appeal) into account

    I would REALLY love to see how many girls/boys enter the scrabble competition vs how many boys are at the top level. Without it, all I can say is that at IQ115 cutoff we can expect being 2.1 boys for every girl (2/3 of top players), hence overrepresentation of boys at the amateur level need not to be effect of very high IQ required for being top scrabble player.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • An interesting talk by Flynn, but he ends by misattributing a line from Kipling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • https://mobile.twitter.com/DrDvdLinden/status/854683696905039872?p=v

    Hbd -ears are that people who accuse others to be psycho bubbled (accuse correctly: Right. Believe they are protected from psycho bubbles: Wrong) but that fall in the same magic… Period.

    “General factor of personality”, aka g factor, is not what they think it is… Period.

    And because obviously emotional/psychological intelligence, aka specific skills, correlates with g personality factor, “they’ think it mean that both is the same… Is that??

    It’s in the semantic department hbd’s start to lose themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @lavoisier
    No, I am not sure. But neither are you despite your self-confidence.

    There are many factors at play in the cultural destruction of the West. I agree with you that Jewish control of far too many of our institutions is not good for either personal freedom, our civilization, or world peace (or for the Jewish people for that matter). But I don't think it is the primary reason for the dismemberment and decline of Western Civilization. We, and by we I mean those who have gone along with the program of cultural masochism, are the prime movers of our collective destruction and cultural annihilation. Furthermore, I think the loss of our religious faith has played an incredibly destructive role as well. This factor may well be the most important one in facilitating our cultural suicide. I do not believe that our cultural dismemberment is primarily the responsibility of the in your face destructive and subversive tendencies of far too many liberal Jews.

    It is a tragedy for sure and it will ultimately lead to bloodshed. For us, as well as the rest of the world.

    I don’t think you can tell it for me..

    This is the symptoms not the cause.

    What is the cause???

    “Loss of our religious faith”

    I never have it, ;)

    I test drive god and I disliked the product.

    The rest of the world in the same white Jewish trash pathetic melodrama…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    You believe??
    Are you not sure??

    "Single greatest factor"

    Simplistic???

    Blame the useful idiots, ok.

    How this people dominates every important political key-position?? ;)

    Last try??

    No, I am not sure. But neither are you despite your self-confidence.

    There are many factors at play in the cultural destruction of the West. I agree with you that Jewish control of far too many of our institutions is not good for either personal freedom, our civilization, or world peace (or for the Jewish people for that matter). But I don’t think it is the primary reason for the dismemberment and decline of Western Civilization. We, and by we I mean those who have gone along with the program of cultural masochism, are the prime movers of our collective destruction and cultural annihilation. Furthermore, I think the loss of our religious faith has played an incredibly destructive role as well. This factor may well be the most important one in facilitating our cultural suicide. I do not believe that our cultural dismemberment is primarily the responsibility of the in your face destructive and subversive tendencies of far too many liberal Jews.

    It is a tragedy for sure and it will ultimately lead to bloodshed. For us, as well as the rest of the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I don't think you can tell it for me..

    This is the symptoms not the cause.

    What is the cause???

    "Loss of our religious faith"

    I never have it, ;)

    I test drive god and I disliked the product.

    The rest of the world in the same white Jewish trash pathetic melodrama...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto

    But the results of factor analysis certainly suggests that there are not a great many basic ways to be smart
     
    It's just a CULT. It's so easy to agree with it that i can't find other explanations to understand why such smart people as you, can say it without any miserable reflect.

    You're data-dependent/ need data or ''scientific evidences'' to see with your own eyes what seems self-evident*

    ''Factor analysis'' whatever it is, don't analyse the combination of psychological and cognitive traits, both interacting one each other all the time. The ''multiple'' [combination] of ''intelligence'' [or specific abilities] are wrong only or specially because it's based on the idea that this abilities are separated while i believe brain tend to be descentralized, i mean, this ''sub-systems'' don't work separately, but in degrees of mutual descentralization. For example, very charged-verbal tasks may be even more near to be separated than descentralized, but still i don't believe in this theory.

    If you think that be, intrapersonally, interpersonally, verbally, mathematically, spatially, kinestetically, naturalistically/sound ''scientifically'', impersonally smart[er], emotionally, creatively, is ''not great many basic ways to be smart'', ok.

    Seems that entire psychometric castle is based on the idea that intelligence is fundamentally a cognitive skills. So it's expected that this ''factor analysis'' will not find many ways to be smart, only what pyschometric tests analyse and sub-used, in my ''humble'' opinion.

    A g theory of intelligence (not of “cognitive ability” generally) is currently best supported, but not in a way that’s decisive.
     
    What's your definition of g* and with examples, please.

    A rival theory to g is the Cattell-Horn theory of two gs: fluid and crystallized intelligence.
     
    RIVAL*

    I don't think it sound rival, it's just one of the facets of intelligence. We are talking about perspectives, sides or ''sub-systems'' of intelligence. Fluid is related with reasoning without [supposed] prior knowledge [just the instinct or ''inherited knowledge'', ;], crystallized is related with reasoning via memory, short and/to long term.


    G is about the structure of intelligence: pattern recognition, this is the roots of intelligence, in every intelligent behavior, partially to totally correct pattern recognition is required to be characteristically intelligent. Factor g is the fundamental link that sustain a specific structure, it's what is universally underlying to the given structure, not just intelligence, everything have a factor g, we have.

    I long ago proposed that there are three factor of cognitive ability: Conceptual (intelligence); perceptual (spatial, auditory, etc.) ; and metaphorical (divergent). See “Cognitive abilities as expression of three ways of knowing.”
     
    Interesting, i have a pet-theory that metaphorical thinkers have little problems to understand abstractions so they need ''translate'' it to the concrete, practical or familiar terms. Well, i'm a metaphorical thinker, maybe it's just a self-extrapolation with possible potential of cohort comprehensiveness. In other hand, ''we'' or at least i tend to it because i wan't trully understand what it's mean while via possibly obscure conformity, a lot of people simply pretend to understand what they fully don't understand. It's bizarre, seems ''new emperor clothes'' is more bigger than i actually imagine.

    I'm not familiar if metaphorical thinking is the primordial thinking style of most of creativer people.

    Perceptual seems our first channel of factual understanding, second cognitive or our ''mechanical part'' and emotion is in the end the way we judge reality.

    wan’t

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @gustafus
    Who cares? Another worthless diatribe which seeks to affirm the "value" of worthless, violent, breeding hordes of Africans.

    I want them sterilized if they are going to receive ANY assistance, HERE , or in Africa. Sure, we SAVED THE CHILDREN..... at the expense of every bird and butterfly in Africa.

    I CARE about rhinos, lions, cheetahs and the more deserving populations of Africa. I could care a whit whether another dose of penicillin is sent to a population whose children spell absolute doom for Western Civilization and the beauty and splendor of African ... without Africans.

    Absent penicillin and vaccines - African might have been saved from a plague of low IQ breeding populations who never discovered the relationship between feces, water, and death.

    The subject makes my blood boil. And once we save them from themselves, they promptly hack their white neighbors to death, and plunder what they are incapable of producing themselves.

    Too many whites visit only the game parks of Africa... and even those existed only when rangers were instructed to shoot on sight, any local populations within the parks.

    There are horrible white people and great black people, stop with this proto-genocidal generalizations. Yes, a bigger proportion of blacks are quite problematic, but it doesn’t mean it’s the final destiny of black race, it can be changed. And, the most important, if sex is older than races, so, sexual behavior is determinant on racial behavior. Blacks have higher % of individuals, specially among men, who have indigest prevalence of bad masculine behaviors, even we know blacks tend to be psychologically hyper-masculine than most of other human populations. It’s hyper-masculinity, the same shit that made europeans invade, enslave and colonize Africa, as well black men be disproportionally problematic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond

    People must understand that because intelligence is a broader and structural concept so there are many ways to be smart.
     
    Whether there's a single thing necessary (but not sufficient) for success in any intellectual field isn't an easy question (as most contributors seem to think). But the results of factor analysis certainly suggests that there are not a great many basic ways to be smart. A g theory of intelligence (not of "cognitive ability" generally) is currently best supported, but not in a way that's decisive. A rival theory to g is the Cattell-Horn theory of two gs: fluid and crystallized intelligence. (Along with a number of broad factors. I long ago proposed that there are three factor of cognitive ability: Conceptual (intelligence); perceptual (spatial, auditory, etc.) ; and metaphorical (divergent). See "Cognitive abilities as expression of three ways of knowing." - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327906mbr1501_3

    But the results of factor analysis certainly suggests that there are not a great many basic ways to be smart

    It’s just a CULT. It’s so easy to agree with it that i can’t find other explanations to understand why such smart people as you, can say it without any miserable reflect.

    You’re data-dependent/ need data or ”scientific evidences” to see with your own eyes what seems self-evident*

    ”Factor analysis” whatever it is, don’t analyse the combination of psychological and cognitive traits, both interacting one each other all the time. The ”multiple” [combination] of ”intelligence” [or specific abilities] are wrong only or specially because it’s based on the idea that this abilities are separated while i believe brain tend to be descentralized, i mean, this ”sub-systems” don’t work separately, but in degrees of mutual descentralization. For example, very charged-verbal tasks may be even more near to be separated than descentralized, but still i don’t believe in this theory.

    If you think that be, intrapersonally, interpersonally, verbally, mathematically, spatially, kinestetically, naturalistically/sound ”scientifically”, impersonally smart[er], emotionally, creatively, is ”not great many basic ways to be smart”, ok.

    Seems that entire psychometric castle is based on the idea that intelligence is fundamentally a cognitive skills. So it’s expected that this ”factor analysis” will not find many ways to be smart, only what pyschometric tests analyse and sub-used, in my ”humble” opinion.

    A g theory of intelligence (not of “cognitive ability” generally) is currently best supported, but not in a way that’s decisive.

    What’s your definition of g* and with examples, please.

    A rival theory to g is the Cattell-Horn theory of two gs: fluid and crystallized intelligence.

    RIVAL*

    I don’t think it sound rival, it’s just one of the facets of intelligence. We are talking about perspectives, sides or ”sub-systems” of intelligence. Fluid is related with reasoning without [supposed] prior knowledge [just the instinct or ''inherited knowledge'', ;], crystallized is related with reasoning via memory, short and/to long term.

    G is about the structure of intelligence: pattern recognition, this is the roots of intelligence, in every intelligent behavior, partially to totally correct pattern recognition is required to be characteristically intelligent. Factor g is the fundamental link that sustain a specific structure, it’s what is universally underlying to the given structure, not just intelligence, everything have a factor g, we have.

    I long ago proposed that there are three factor of cognitive ability: Conceptual (intelligence); perceptual (spatial, auditory, etc.) ; and metaphorical (divergent). See “Cognitive abilities as expression of three ways of knowing.”

    Interesting, i have a pet-theory that metaphorical thinkers have little problems to understand abstractions so they need ”translate” it to the concrete, practical or familiar terms. Well, i’m a metaphorical thinker, maybe it’s just a self-extrapolation with possible potential of cohort comprehensiveness. In other hand, ”we” or at least i tend to it because i wan’t trully understand what it’s mean while via possibly obscure conformity, a lot of people simply pretend to understand what they fully don’t understand. It’s bizarre, seems ”new emperor clothes” is more bigger than i actually imagine.

    I’m not familiar if metaphorical thinking is the primordial thinking style of most of creativer people.

    Perceptual seems our first channel of factual understanding, second cognitive or our ”mechanical part” and emotion is in the end the way we judge reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    wan't

    https://media.giphy.com/media/3o85xlskK9pbp68Mco/giphy.gif
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @gustafus
    Who cares? Another worthless diatribe which seeks to affirm the "value" of worthless, violent, breeding hordes of Africans.

    I want them sterilized if they are going to receive ANY assistance, HERE , or in Africa. Sure, we SAVED THE CHILDREN..... at the expense of every bird and butterfly in Africa.

    I CARE about rhinos, lions, cheetahs and the more deserving populations of Africa. I could care a whit whether another dose of penicillin is sent to a population whose children spell absolute doom for Western Civilization and the beauty and splendor of African ... without Africans.

    Absent penicillin and vaccines - African might have been saved from a plague of low IQ breeding populations who never discovered the relationship between feces, water, and death.

    The subject makes my blood boil. And once we save them from themselves, they promptly hack their white neighbors to death, and plunder what they are incapable of producing themselves.

    Too many whites visit only the game parks of Africa... and even those existed only when rangers were instructed to shoot on sight, any local populations within the parks.

    Gustafus, since your in a mood for blood, why don’t you return to your native Sweden and save your own people from the hordes of marauding invaders, while leaving the Africans to do as they wish with their native lands.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Michaeloh

    Wisdom is an active faculty of judgement, defined variously as: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, sense, perspicacity, percipience, acuity, discrimination, wit, judiciousness, prudence, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, horse sense, street smarts, gumption — all manifestations of intelligence.
     
    Then, you argue that the Nazis and Bolsheviks were wise. Good luck with that. However I would be happy to surrender the word wisdom to put aside this distraction. My point is that it is hardly unusual for intelligent people to make horrible decisions. Very high IQ professors insist, with a straight face, that race is a social construct yet carefully research which breed of dog is most suitable for their young children. This should not be controversial.

    Then, you argue that the Nazis and Bolsheviks were wise.

    WTF!

    My point is that it is hardly unusual for intelligent people to make horrible decisions.

    You’re still stuck on the idea of a unitary intelligence. But if you look at the data, you will see that the correlation among aptitudes upon which the concept of g is based are extremely weak, in fact, negative in some cases.

    Once you clear your mind of the IQ-ist BS, you will see that it is possible to be good at math but unable to write a book without the collaboration of a professional writer, e.g., Richard Feynman. Likewise, it is possible to be a political wizard and yet make what to most people look like unwise decisions.

    However, you have to realized that merely because a decision or a series of decisions ends badly it does not mean that they were unwise. There is much uncertainty about almost all major decisions, so even the wisest person, i.e., the person who weighs the odds and considers all possible outcomes in the most intelligent possible way, will often find, in the event, that they made the wrong decision.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @utu
    Wisdom, intelligence, IQ?

    When thinking of MENSA members certainly wisdom is not the word that comes to your mind.

    When thinking of MENSA members certainly wisdom is not the word that comes to your mind.

    You say this based on personal experience of a variety of people in multiple areas?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Who cares? Another worthless diatribe which seeks to affirm the “value” of worthless, violent, breeding hordes of Africans.

    I want them sterilized if they are going to receive ANY assistance, HERE , or in Africa. Sure, we SAVED THE CHILDREN….. at the expense of every bird and butterfly in Africa.

    I CARE about rhinos, lions, cheetahs and the more deserving populations of Africa. I could care a whit whether another dose of penicillin is sent to a population whose children spell absolute doom for Western Civilization and the beauty and splendor of African … without Africans.

    Absent penicillin and vaccines – African might have been saved from a plague of low IQ breeding populations who never discovered the relationship between feces, water, and death.

    The subject makes my blood boil. And once we save them from themselves, they promptly hack their white neighbors to death, and plunder what they are incapable of producing themselves.

    Too many whites visit only the game parks of Africa… and even those existed only when rangers were instructed to shoot on sight, any local populations within the parks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Gustafus, since your in a mood for blood, why don't you return to your native Sweden and save your own people from the hordes of marauding invaders, while leaving the Africans to do as they wish with their native lands.
    , @Santoculto
    There are horrible white people and great black people, stop with this proto-genocidal generalizations. Yes, a bigger proportion of blacks are quite problematic, but it doesn't mean it's the final destiny of black race, it can be changed. And, the most important, if sex is older than races, so, sexual behavior is determinant on racial behavior. Blacks have higher % of individuals, specially among men, who have indigest prevalence of bad masculine behaviors, even we know blacks tend to be psychologically hyper-masculine than most of other human populations. It's hyper-masculinity, the same shit that made europeans invade, enslave and colonize Africa, as well black men be disproportionally problematic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    you confuse intelligence with wisdom, or if you prefer, good values
     
    No, wisdom is not a matter of good values. A fool may have good values, a wise scoundrel may have bad values, or as David Hume remarked:

    honesty is the best policy, but the wise knave will take advantage of every exception.
     
    Wisdom is an active faculty of judgement, defined variously as: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, sense, perspicacity, percipience, acuity, discrimination, wit, judiciousness, prudence, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, horse sense, street smarts, gumption — all manifestations of intelligence.

    Wisdom is an active faculty of judgement, defined variously as: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, sense, perspicacity, percipience, acuity, discrimination, wit, judiciousness, prudence, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, horse sense, street smarts, gumption — all manifestations of intelligence.

    Then, you argue that the Nazis and Bolsheviks were wise. Good luck with that. However I would be happy to surrender the word wisdom to put aside this distraction. My point is that it is hardly unusual for intelligent people to make horrible decisions. Very high IQ professors insist, with a straight face, that race is a social construct yet carefully research which breed of dog is most suitable for their young children. This should not be controversial.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Then, you argue that the Nazis and Bolsheviks were wise.
     
    WTF!

    My point is that it is hardly unusual for intelligent people to make horrible decisions.
     
    You're still stuck on the idea of a unitary intelligence. But if you look at the data, you will see that the correlation among aptitudes upon which the concept of g is based are extremely weak, in fact, negative in some cases.

    Once you clear your mind of the IQ-ist BS, you will see that it is possible to be good at math but unable to write a book without the collaboration of a professional writer, e.g., Richard Feynman. Likewise, it is possible to be a political wizard and yet make what to most people look like unwise decisions.

    However, you have to realized that merely because a decision or a series of decisions ends badly it does not mean that they were unwise. There is much uncertainty about almost all major decisions, so even the wisest person, i.e., the person who weighs the odds and considers all possible outcomes in the most intelligent possible way, will often find, in the event, that they made the wrong decision.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond

    For example in geometry I’m completely stupid, at retarded levels.
     
    Low spatio-visual aptitude. Maybe you have some Jew in you.

    No, it’s not a unique jewish feature, it’s just demographically predominant among them than among other gentile groups.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    you confuse intelligence with wisdom, or if you prefer, good values
     
    No, wisdom is not a matter of good values. A fool may have good values, a wise scoundrel may have bad values, or as David Hume remarked:

    honesty is the best policy, but the wise knave will take advantage of every exception.
     
    Wisdom is an active faculty of judgement, defined variously as: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, sense, perspicacity, percipience, acuity, discrimination, wit, judiciousness, prudence, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, horse sense, street smarts, gumption — all manifestations of intelligence.

    Wisdom, intelligence, IQ?

    When thinking of MENSA members certainly wisdom is not the word that comes to your mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    When thinking of MENSA members certainly wisdom is not the word that comes to your mind.
     
    You say this based on personal experience of a variety of people in multiple areas?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res
    I like most of your arguments and points, but not this one so much:

    You cannot realistically claim that environment depresses IQ, because it would depress equally all subscores, and not somehow magically leaving mathematical skills needed in Scrabble intact.
     
    There are two things going on that makes this possible. First, not everyone in Gabon has a problem environment. It is quite possible that there is a large cohort which has a poor environment and dominates the statistics. If we posit (I'm not proving this here, clearly) an elite with both the best genetics and environment in Gabon then that would help explain what we see.

    Second, I don't think we can a priori rule out the possibility that environment will depress the subscores to different degrees (not all or nothing, just greater or lesser effects). It's also possible that environmental insults are time dependent (e.g. I think there is some support for prenatal damage at particular times causing idiosyncratic intellectual damage).

    Lastly, if I take "You cannot realistically claim that environment depresses IQ" literally then I emphatically disagree with you (a counterexample is lead poisoning). Did you mean something like "and that this explains the IQ/Scrabble results we see for Gabon"?

    As I (and others, including you IIRC) have said we really need to do real IQ measurements of Gabonese in general and their Scrabble players in particular. Based on the Lynn reference I posted above I think his Gabon estimate is based on neighboring countries (anyone who KNOWS please confirm/deny).

    In this I mean that if the argument goes “Gabon, Nigeria etc education, iq scores are depressed because of the environment” then it should depress also the “incredible Scrabble skills”; it does not, hence it cannot be environment depressing biological scores of all population.

    If we posit (I’m not proving this here, clearly) an elite with both the best genetics and environment in Gabon then that would help explain what we see.

    IF (as I have written in on eof the comments above), if it only “biologically” depresses part (say 90%) of the population, then, IF elite player need something like IQ -145 and SD = 15, THEN there would be something like 50 people even able to play at this level in Gabon – and the idea, that more than 10% of them decided to play Scrabble seems to me unbelieveable (161 people if you accept IQ140 – still, almost 5% of most intelligent people deciding to go for scrabble!). IF however this is believeable somehow, THEN so are alternatives: lower mean IQ for whole population and maybe a bit lower mean IQ for top elite Scrabble players (like IQ 85, SD15 and threshold 140, or IQ85, threshold 135 and so on).

    So, IMO, either you can’t believe in the environment depressing biological base of iq (lead poisoning, nutrition etc) as explanation of what we see, OR you have to also accept the alternative hypothesis of lower IQ mean (because IF you believe in environmental explanation, you would have to accept at least one of the following a] insane popularity of the scrabble attracting large percent of the most intelligent people in the country b] the mean iq of top elite players of being lower than 145).

    I mean by the above, NOT “environmental explanation is impossible”, but rather “if environmental explanation is possible, THEN it can’t be the only explanation, nor the most parsimonious one”.

    IMO even 1% of the most intelligent people in the country going for some obscure scrabble seems astonishing, but at least believeable. But 5%? 10%? That’s… let’s say possible, but only if you think there are no really other options for intelligent people in Gabon.

    Besides, a large number of people at IQ>145 means much more people at IQ>130, IQ>115 and so on – and with large number of people like this, you would expect some other evidence: patents, highly-quoted scientists and so on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Stephen R. Diamond

    would probably have credited him with a good native intelligence.
     
    If you agree there's such a thing as "native intelligence," why do you reject g (which is conceived as just that).

    If you agree there’s such a thing as “native intelligence,” why do you reject g (which is conceived as just that).

    native intelligence: sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like.

    As defined, native intelligence has nothing to do with Jensen’s g, which “arises from the empirical fact that scores on various cognitive tests are positively correlated in the population”

    But correlated poorly, because they are more or less independent variables, which is why a math genius such as Feynman can have a modest IQ of 125, his mathematical gift being unmatch by other faculties.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    native intelligence: sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like.

    As defined, native intelligence has nothing to do with Jensen’s g,
     
    It's the same concept. If you speak of native intelligence, then you are speaking of a unitary factor: individuals can be ranked on it.

    In essence, you're saying there's a factor of general intelligence, but IQ tests fail to measure it.


    But correlated poorly, because they are more or less independent variables, which is why a math genius such as Feynman can have a modest IQ of 125, his mathematical gift being unmatch by other faculties.
     
    Well, this is the essence of the question: are they well correlated? But in fact, the correlation between two very different measures of IQ, verbal and performance, correlate .7 rebuts your claim.

    You are putting an awful lot of emphasis on Feynman, a single example, for a claim you recognize as statistical. We don't even know what test Feynman got this score on. One major possibility is that it was the California Test of Mental Maturity, often administered in grade school, which includes as items hands placed in different positions with the task of saying whether it's a right or left hand. If he scored very poorly on that section, it could have dragged his score way down if he suffered from dyslexia.

    Yet you ignore the vast evidence that physicists are very high in general intelligence. The classic study is Roe's where eminent physicists scored around 160 on a Verbal intelligence measure.

    I think potential counter-examples like Feynman are interesting because the theory of g is more than an assertion of positive manifold. With plausible elaboration, it would hold that it's impossible to have what amounts to a savant physicist. I don't know for sure that's the case, but I don't think it is. If Feynman really were intellectually mediocre, I would find that a convincing argument against g.

    Here's another bit of evidence about Feynman. He wrote an essay "Cargo Cult Science" that you've probably read. This isn't about physics or math (side note: math talent alone doesn't make a great theoretical physicist.) That essay alone convinces me Feynman's level of g is well above 124.

    One more thought. You posted that Feynman rejected taxonomies. Well, theories of the structure of intellect are taxonomies (of abilities).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    People must understand that because intelligence is a broader and structural concept so there are many ways to be smart.

    Wisdom would be the extreme expression or manifestation of intelligence in qualitative ways. We all are smart avg and dumb everyday, every month, be wise would be try to achieve a progressive generalization of correct judgments/be smart and don't commit more "de novo" mistakes.

    People must understand that because intelligence is a broader and structural concept so there are many ways to be smart.

    Whether there’s a single thing necessary (but not sufficient) for success in any intellectual field isn’t an easy question (as most contributors seem to think). But the results of factor analysis certainly suggests that there are not a great many basic ways to be smart. A g theory of intelligence (not of “cognitive ability” generally) is currently best supported, but not in a way that’s decisive. A rival theory to g is the Cattell-Horn theory of two gs: fluid and crystallized intelligence. (Along with a number of broad factors. I long ago proposed that there are three factor of cognitive ability: Conceptual (intelligence); perceptual (spatial, auditory, etc.) ; and metaphorical (divergent). See “Cognitive abilities as expression of three ways of knowing.” – http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327906mbr1501_3

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    But the results of factor analysis certainly suggests that there are not a great many basic ways to be smart
     
    It's just a CULT. It's so easy to agree with it that i can't find other explanations to understand why such smart people as you, can say it without any miserable reflect.

    You're data-dependent/ need data or ''scientific evidences'' to see with your own eyes what seems self-evident*

    ''Factor analysis'' whatever it is, don't analyse the combination of psychological and cognitive traits, both interacting one each other all the time. The ''multiple'' [combination] of ''intelligence'' [or specific abilities] are wrong only or specially because it's based on the idea that this abilities are separated while i believe brain tend to be descentralized, i mean, this ''sub-systems'' don't work separately, but in degrees of mutual descentralization. For example, very charged-verbal tasks may be even more near to be separated than descentralized, but still i don't believe in this theory.

    If you think that be, intrapersonally, interpersonally, verbally, mathematically, spatially, kinestetically, naturalistically/sound ''scientifically'', impersonally smart[er], emotionally, creatively, is ''not great many basic ways to be smart'', ok.

    Seems that entire psychometric castle is based on the idea that intelligence is fundamentally a cognitive skills. So it's expected that this ''factor analysis'' will not find many ways to be smart, only what pyschometric tests analyse and sub-used, in my ''humble'' opinion.

    A g theory of intelligence (not of “cognitive ability” generally) is currently best supported, but not in a way that’s decisive.
     
    What's your definition of g* and with examples, please.

    A rival theory to g is the Cattell-Horn theory of two gs: fluid and crystallized intelligence.
     
    RIVAL*

    I don't think it sound rival, it's just one of the facets of intelligence. We are talking about perspectives, sides or ''sub-systems'' of intelligence. Fluid is related with reasoning without [supposed] prior knowledge [just the instinct or ''inherited knowledge'', ;], crystallized is related with reasoning via memory, short and/to long term.


    G is about the structure of intelligence: pattern recognition, this is the roots of intelligence, in every intelligent behavior, partially to totally correct pattern recognition is required to be characteristically intelligent. Factor g is the fundamental link that sustain a specific structure, it's what is universally underlying to the given structure, not just intelligence, everything have a factor g, we have.

    I long ago proposed that there are three factor of cognitive ability: Conceptual (intelligence); perceptual (spatial, auditory, etc.) ; and metaphorical (divergent). See “Cognitive abilities as expression of three ways of knowing.”
     
    Interesting, i have a pet-theory that metaphorical thinkers have little problems to understand abstractions so they need ''translate'' it to the concrete, practical or familiar terms. Well, i'm a metaphorical thinker, maybe it's just a self-extrapolation with possible potential of cohort comprehensiveness. In other hand, ''we'' or at least i tend to it because i wan't trully understand what it's mean while via possibly obscure conformity, a lot of people simply pretend to understand what they fully don't understand. It's bizarre, seems ''new emperor clothes'' is more bigger than i actually imagine.

    I'm not familiar if metaphorical thinking is the primordial thinking style of most of creativer people.

    Perceptual seems our first channel of factual understanding, second cognitive or our ''mechanical part'' and emotion is in the end the way we judge reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    What for you is a simple contradiction for me it's just the self knowledge. I know where I'm good and I'm usually very good here. But I also know where I'm very bad, simple and plain stupid. For example in geometry I'm completely stupid, at retarded levels. ;)

    We live in the world where be humble/be arrogant has been excessively literalized. Or you are saint without ego or you are a devil with a gigantic ego??? Be a false totally humble look better for you?

    This remind me this IQ--intelligence and racial differences debate because we have in one side people who always try to act as a humble group, "everyone is equal", "everyone is capable", isn't?? In other side we have those who say otherwise, the "non humble" deplorable ones.

    Intellectually humble is not the same that lower intellectual self esteem but specially be capable to know their own limitations and be always open minded to accept their mistakes. What I'm. Do you knew I accepted that no there multiple intelligence theory?? I already commented here about it.

    Welcome to the world of intrapersonal skills, do you have it??

    For example in geometry I’m completely stupid, at retarded levels.

    Low spatio-visual aptitude. Maybe you have some Jew in you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    No, it's not a unique jewish feature, it's just demographically predominant among them than among other gentile groups.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    Imagine having an ordinary intellectual conversation with Feynman, about some subject unrelated to math or physics yet of interest to him (and in which you are knowledgeable). You don’t know who you are talking to. Do you think you would judge your interlocutor intelligent, mediocre in intelligence, or of completely unknown ability?
     
    One of Feynman's set pieces was about how his father mocked those who knew the names of birds, flowers, etc., his point being that knowing the name of something tells you nothing about it.

    In reponse, I would point out to him the ignorance of his position, since the Linnaean system of classifying organisms is based on structural and anatomical features that are strongly indicative of phylogenetic relationships. Thus if you know the name of a plant or animal you will, if you understand the scientific system of classification, immediately know a great deal about the organism's structure and evolutionary relationships.

    So on that basis I'd probably consider Feynman a bit of a yahoo, although I personally like amusing yahoos as Feynman seems to have been and would probably have credited him with a good native intelligence.

    would probably have credited him with a good native intelligence.

    If you agree there’s such a thing as “native intelligence,” why do you reject g (which is conceived as just that).

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    If you agree there’s such a thing as “native intelligence,” why do you reject g (which is conceived as just that).
     
    native intelligence: sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like.

    As defined, native intelligence has nothing to do with Jensen's g, which "arises from the empirical fact that scores on various cognitive tests are positively correlated in the population"

    But correlated poorly, because they are more or less independent variables, which is why a math genius such as Feynman can have a modest IQ of 125, his mathematical gift being unmatch by other faculties.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Michaeloh

    If intelligence, as you define it, does not yield wisdom, perhaps you need to revise your notion of intelligence.
     
    Intelligence is unecessary to wisdom, as the slow kid in school with good values demonstrates. On the other hand remarkably intelligent people with poor values litter history; The Nazis and the Bolsheviks had amongst them some very intelligent people. But were they wise?

    As I said, you confuse intelligence with wisdom, or if you prefer, good values.

    you confuse intelligence with wisdom, or if you prefer, good values

    No, wisdom is not a matter of good values. A fool may have good values, a wise scoundrel may have bad values, or as David Hume remarked:

    honesty is the best policy, but the wise knave will take advantage of every exception.

    Wisdom is an active faculty of judgement, defined variously as: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, sense, perspicacity, percipience, acuity, discrimination, wit, judiciousness, prudence, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, horse sense, street smarts, gumption — all manifestations of intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Wisdom, intelligence, IQ?

    When thinking of MENSA members certainly wisdom is not the word that comes to your mind.
    , @Michaeloh

    Wisdom is an active faculty of judgement, defined variously as: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, sense, perspicacity, percipience, acuity, discrimination, wit, judiciousness, prudence, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, horse sense, street smarts, gumption — all manifestations of intelligence.
     
    Then, you argue that the Nazis and Bolsheviks were wise. Good luck with that. However I would be happy to surrender the word wisdom to put aside this distraction. My point is that it is hardly unusual for intelligent people to make horrible decisions. Very high IQ professors insist, with a straight face, that race is a social construct yet carefully research which breed of dog is most suitable for their young children. This should not be controversial.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    The fact that many Euro elites pursue destructive immigration policies hardly makes them stupid, it is an indictment of their values. Secondly- destructive to whom? Oftentimes not the elites nor their employers who are protected from the downside of immigration
     
    This is at a tangent to the current discussion, though an interesting point. Those I would consider the stupids are the middle-class progs. happily promoting the destruction of their own gene pool. The elite probably have no intention of mixing their genes with the lower orders of mankind, or whatever race. Whether they succeed in creating a globe-spanning, multi-racial elite remains to be seen.

    Those I would consider the stupids are the middle-class progs. happily promoting the destruction of their own gene pool.

    Again, you have confused intelligence for good values, or wisdom. The middle class progs who favor policies which are destructive of their own gene pool are rarely stupid in my experience. But they are status seeking weaklings who find the hate whitey narrative to be both a career and social ladder. A related group are simply tools (i.e. Employees) of the Elite (whom benefit from these policies) often times chosen for their position on the basis of their competence in cognitive tasks ( i.e. Journalist/propagandists). The middle class progs aren’t stupid, they simply value their own status and immediate gratification over that of you, me, and their own progeny. Often intelligent,rarely wise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    First, you are confusing intelligence with wisdom.
     
    If intelligence, as you define it, does not yield wisdom, perhaps you need to revise your notion of intelligence.

    If intelligence, as you define it, does not yield wisdom, perhaps you need to revise your notion of intelligence.

    Intelligence is unecessary to wisdom, as the slow kid in school with good values demonstrates. On the other hand remarkably intelligent people with poor values litter history; The Nazis and the Bolsheviks had amongst them some very intelligent people. But were they wise?

    As I said, you confuse intelligence with wisdom, or if you prefer, good values.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    you confuse intelligence with wisdom, or if you prefer, good values
     
    No, wisdom is not a matter of good values. A fool may have good values, a wise scoundrel may have bad values, or as David Hume remarked:

    honesty is the best policy, but the wise knave will take advantage of every exception.
     
    Wisdom is an active faculty of judgement, defined variously as: discernment, acumen, shrewdness, astuteness, sense, perspicacity, percipience, acuity, discrimination, wit, judiciousness, prudence, canniness, sharpness, sharp-wittedness, horse sense, street smarts, gumption — all manifestations of intelligence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @lavoisier
    Another try:

    Jews are almost certainly the most responsible ethnic group promoting ideas that undermine Western cultural cohesion and encouraging massive and unnecessary third world immigration to the West.

    But I believe that despite this malicious and clearly destructive behavior by far too many influential Jews, the single greatest factor that is causing the destruction of Western societies today comes from the brain dead behavior of the white liberal and the treachery of the cuckservative politician. Their inability to stand up for their own culture, their own civilization, their own people, while embracing the hatred that is often preached by too many Jews, is the single greatest problem faced by the West. Without these fools and traitors, we would not be where we are today.

    You believe??
    Are you not sure??

    “Single greatest factor”

    Simplistic???

    Blame the useful idiots, ok.

    How this people dominates every important political key-position?? ;)

    Last try??

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    No, I am not sure. But neither are you despite your self-confidence.

    There are many factors at play in the cultural destruction of the West. I agree with you that Jewish control of far too many of our institutions is not good for either personal freedom, our civilization, or world peace (or for the Jewish people for that matter). But I don't think it is the primary reason for the dismemberment and decline of Western Civilization. We, and by we I mean those who have gone along with the program of cultural masochism, are the prime movers of our collective destruction and cultural annihilation. Furthermore, I think the loss of our religious faith has played an incredibly destructive role as well. This factor may well be the most important one in facilitating our cultural suicide. I do not believe that our cultural dismemberment is primarily the responsibility of the in your face destructive and subversive tendencies of far too many liberal Jews.

    It is a tragedy for sure and it will ultimately lead to bloodshed. For us, as well as the rest of the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    First, you are confusing intelligence with wisdom.
     
    If intelligence, as you define it, does not yield wisdom, perhaps you need to revise your notion of intelligence.

    People must understand that because intelligence is a broader and structural concept so there are many ways to be smart.

    Wisdom would be the extreme expression or manifestation of intelligence in qualitative ways. We all are smart avg and dumb everyday, every month, be wise would be try to achieve a progressive generalization of correct judgments/be smart and don’t commit more “de novo” mistakes.

    Read More
    • Agree: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    People must understand that because intelligence is a broader and structural concept so there are many ways to be smart.
     
    Whether there's a single thing necessary (but not sufficient) for success in any intellectual field isn't an easy question (as most contributors seem to think). But the results of factor analysis certainly suggests that there are not a great many basic ways to be smart. A g theory of intelligence (not of "cognitive ability" generally) is currently best supported, but not in a way that's decisive. A rival theory to g is the Cattell-Horn theory of two gs: fluid and crystallized intelligence. (Along with a number of broad factors. I long ago proposed that there are three factor of cognitive ability: Conceptual (intelligence); perceptual (spatial, auditory, etc.) ; and metaphorical (divergent). See "Cognitive abilities as expression of three ways of knowing." - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327906mbr1501_3
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res
    It's entertaining to see these statements in two successive comments from you:

    I have exceptional verbal abstraction skills.
     

    I’m insecure, maybe it’s reflects in my intellectual humility…
     

    What for you is a simple contradiction for me it’s just the self knowledge. I know where I’m good and I’m usually very good here. But I also know where I’m very bad, simple and plain stupid. For example in geometry I’m completely stupid, at retarded levels. ;)

    We live in the world where be humble/be arrogant has been excessively literalized. Or you are saint without ego or you are a devil with a gigantic ego??? Be a false totally humble look better for you?

    This remind me this IQ–intelligence and racial differences debate because we have in one side people who always try to act as a humble group, “everyone is equal”, “everyone is capable”, isn’t?? In other side we have those who say otherwise, the “non humble” deplorable ones.

    Intellectually humble is not the same that lower intellectual self esteem but specially be capable to know their own limitations and be always open minded to accept their mistakes. What I’m. Do you knew I accepted that no there multiple intelligence theory?? I already commented here about it.

    Welcome to the world of intrapersonal skills, do you have it??

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    For example in geometry I’m completely stupid, at retarded levels.
     
    Low spatio-visual aptitude. Maybe you have some Jew in you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    Thank you very much for the answer. I appreciate you have committed your time to write such a long and thoughtful answer. Also, I realise that you may not read my rejoinder very soon, or maybe not at all.

    Nevertheless, I will use this occassion to think aloud. No new arguments here really - simply, writing helps me to think about your arguments.

    A biological hypothesis should not allow exceptions.
     
    That's generally true; but I am not postulating an exception. Rather, I am noticing that while indeed every mental game requires (some) intelligence, there are many faces to intelligence, the gaps on subtests between whites/blacks really are different, and in many mental games the training and experience means a lot.

    African (adults) supposedly have the cognitive abilities of 11 year old white children. There is no cognitive activity — academic or games — which 11 year old white children (including the very best among them) can perform on the level of full grown adults (and this doesn’t work even if you randomly decide that Africans are equaivalent to 12 or 14 year old whites at IQ 85 or something). There should be no activities that are an exception (and no, I do not believe that forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would make them become the world champions of any activity; it would have been done by now).
     
    That's true, though I would love to dispute the comparison of 12-14 y/o children to 85IQ grownups. WHile I have read this many times, it simply does not believeable, rather like an oversimplification of things. However, since I do not have anything to back this except my intuition, I will just stop.

    However, with 85IQ and average African being equivalent to 12 or 14 years old whites means there still would be a lot of young adult male Africans being equivalent to grown up males; with SD=12, 2635 above 115, and with SD=15, 9647 above 115; Hence while I agree that "forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would [WOULD NOT] make them become the world champions of any activity;", i do not think this is applicable here, because we are NOT talking about kids, but about people above 100, 115, 130 or 145IQ.

    Also, I do not "randomly decide". Simply, it seems to me that no matter what large is the correlation between IQ and scrabble, you have decisively proven that Gabon's IQ _can not_ be 64 or 70 and it has to be higher. The point is how much higher.

    Without the data about gender composition at amateur level of Scrabble (championship+entries) it's hard for me to answer the rest (i.e. whether the gender differences are really that big); all I have found are lists of players without their gender given, only their names, and frankly I gave up after trying to count female/male names quite quickly. I will only note that even if there would a lot of girls trying to compete, then may simply quickly find out that you need to fixate on Scrabble and then they would resign; or they may find out that in Scrabble you win by memorizing the words, mentally rotating them, quickly recognising shapes and calculating scores and they might find that boring. Hence disparities (I speculate) might be explained by self-selection.

    Also, if Scrabble requires some cognitive abilities, then the SD females/males may be large; for visuospatial reasoning, even the hardest proponents of "gender similarity hypothesis" will admit that the differences between boys/girls are high, and - what's more important - they seem to become larger as the children mature.

    And yet Africans have exceptions, which just happen to be in areas that do not need book learning.
     
    Except that it does not seem that those winners are NOT poor children with no access to books.

    http://interlochenpublicradio.org/post/and-no-1-scrabble-nation-world#stream/0

    "Ikolo, who's also a university mathematician, came up with lists of five-letter words and distributed them to his players, including Jighere the world champion, to train them how to block the board. The coach says, armed with these, the Nigerians could take on and beat competitors playing seven-eight- or even nine-letter words. "

    Gabon also seem to have universities and mandatory education, and 87% literacy rate.

    Nevertheless, by "environmental depression" we may understand:
    (1) Something which biologically lowers IQ (lead, lack of nutrition, parasites). That would lower "g" and would mean that also there should not be scrabble players (because it cannot be it just lowers "g" enough to depress education scores and everything else except "g" needed for Scrabble). If it would affect only part of population, leaving 10% intact, then with your estimation of required IQ for elite Scrabble players there would be not enough people to become elite players - if I am wrong, it would left 50 or so people with IQ over 145 assuming mean IQ 100 and SD15. To assume that 7 of them decided to become professional scrabble players is not believeable.

    (2) Something which does not depress biological fundaments of IQ. but only deprives of education. Now, that would indeed explain scrabble, though it would mean more 1 in 100 top IQ people in Gabon decides to become Scrabble players. 1% for such a game means really a lot, IMO.
    Obviously, in any case, for so many players from Gabon become elite players would need the game (scrabble classique) MUST be insanely more popular in Gabon than in France (that, or Gabon's mean IQ would have to be insanely higher than France's).

    I tried to search for data on Gabon alone for immigrants performation outside Africa, and it seems most which seems to have the data is behind the paywalls, so I give that this point is plausible. But why then this lack of education would depress IQ tests which does not require actually anything besides understanding operations on basic numbers, or mental rotation of objects? Why access to books is actually required to excel at Raven's coloured matrices? That's a puzzle.

    Now, the argument about causality in training/being good at scrabble is sound and I had not thought about that, but what about the claim that "ratings are correlated only with number of years playing scrabble, not initial differences in abilities"?

    I am really tired, so forgive me the errors: I spent several hours today searching for data about gender composition of scrabble at all age groups, the educational achievements of Gabonese immigrants and so on.

    Thanks for providing http://interlochenpublicradio.org/post/and-no-1-scrabble-nation-world#stream/0

    That offers some good explanations as for why we would see Scrabble outperformance relative to other games in Nigeria. For example: “And yet Scrabble has caught on in Nigeria in a big way, among veterans and youth” and “Nigerians have been credited with perfecting that tactic under the tutorship of senior team coach, Prince Anthony Ikolo.”
    If only they were so passionate about improving their water supply: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-26/nigerian-water-shortage-is-bigger-killer-than-boko-haram-cities

    and it seems most which seems to have the data is behind the paywalls

    Please see my libgen.io comment earlier.

    I spent several hours today searching for data about gender composition of scrabble at all age groups, the educational achievements of Gabonese immigrants and so on.

    Thanks for all your work bringing more data and insight to this discussion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Yeah, the real test for intellectual competence is scrabble. Sorry, I don’t read this guy’s articles anymore, so I don’t actually know the context within which he is referring to scrabble. All I know is that he seems to have a career based on proving blacks are as smart as everyone else, and it’s hard to take him any more seriously than someone who says Eskimos can run just as fast as anyone else.

    He’s like a hypochondriac, but instead of seeing symptoms everywhere when nobody else does, he sees proof.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    The fact that many Euro elites pursue destructive immigration policies hardly makes them stupid, it is an indictment of their values. Secondly- destructive to whom? Oftentimes not the elites nor their employers who are protected from the downside of immigration
     
    This is at a tangent to the current discussion, though an interesting point. Those I would consider the stupids are the middle-class progs. happily promoting the destruction of their own gene pool. The elite probably have no intention of mixing their genes with the lower orders of mankind, or whatever race. Whether they succeed in creating a globe-spanning, multi-racial elite remains to be seen.

    Hardly make them stupid

    Easily make them evil and morally stupid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy
    This thought-provoking article by Chanda Chisala has generated what, for me, has been a useful discussion, some keys points of which I will venture to summarize:

    1. Those I have referred to as IQ-ists believe that IQ, representing an individual's overall score on a battery of verbal reasoning tests, math puzzles, and pattern matching tasks, measures a unitary property of the central nervous system, which is designated intelligence.

    2. To the IQ-ist, the unitary nature of intelligence is established by the correlations between scores on the various puzzles comprising the IQ test. A mathematical construct named g, the exact nature of which probably very few people understand, represents the degree of correlation among tests and effectively conceals the rather limited degree of correlation that is actually observed, i.e., r-squared values less than 0.5.

    3. A biologist will generally understand the term intelligence more broadly than the IQ-ist and in a Darwinian sense. Thus they will usually include within the meaning of the term all cognitive activity that promotes the survival and reproductive success of the organism.

    In this respect, the Darwinian view is much closer to the commonsense understanding of intelligence, which the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines as:


    the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations ... the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly ...
     
    4. To the Darwinian, the skills required to perform well on an IQ test are extremely limited in range. They demonstrate the capacity to read with comprehension, write with clarity and add up, which are certainly adaptive for those who seek to ensure that there is food in the refrigerator by working at the Post Office or in some other clerical, bureaucratic, or middle-management job.

    In the jungle-dweller or the hunter-gatherer, however, the Darwinist would recognise intelligence in very different skills, including the ability to interpret the sights, and sounds, and smells of both predators and prey; to distinguish the poisonous mushroom among a thousand that are edible; to step from boulder to boulder across a creek in spate when one misstep could mean instant death; to cast a spear or shoot an arrow that saps the strength of an enraged bear, or a charging buffalo.

    5. In addition, the Darwinist will recognize as manifestations of intelligence a multitude of skills that the IQ-ist ignores but which are essential to the survival of mankind both primitive and modern: the ability to charm a maid or beguile a swain; the power to lead in battle, or sway the election crowd; the Machiavellian gift of manipulation; the ability to entertain; the power of technical innovation.

    6. Defined as the Darwinist sees it, the notion of intelligence as a unitary property of the central nervous system is untenable. The nerd who designs the combat aircraft is unlikely to have the coordination to fly it; the charismatic politician may be devoid of understanding in matters of economics, education, or military strategy; the pop singer who can fill a stadium, may be a political imbecile.

    7. The neurologist, examining the substrate of the cognitive activity giving rise to intelligent behavior sees the visual, olfactory, auditory, computational and other aspects of information processing occurring in separate specialized parts of the brain. To the neurologist, therefore, it is evident that aptitudes may vary according to the size, structure, and physiological properties of the various neural components of the brain involved. Thus the Australian aboriginal's path-finding skill appears related to exceptional development of the visual cortex. Carl Gauss's extraordinary mathematical gifts may have been due to the exceptional convolutions of his cerebral cortex, as observed at autopsy.

    8. In summary, the IQ-ists view of intelligence is valid only on the IQ-ist's peculiar and tautological definitions of IQ and intelligence, viz: IQ = intelligence, and intelligence = IQ.

    And even then the definition of intelligence is weak, since it ignores the fact that scores on the components of the IQ test are not tightly correlated, which means that the math geek may have poor linguistic skills, with the result that their IQ reflects neither their mathematical competence nor their linguistic incompetence. Likewise, a literary genius with poor pattern-matching ability would have an IQ reflecting neither their gift nor their weakness.

    9. My conclusion is that if psychology is to advance in the field of intelligence assessment, it must greatly broaden the definition of intelligence and recognize the modularity of both the brain and its properties as manifest in intelligent behavior.

    10. In addition, there has been discussion of environmental influence on intelligence, which is critical to the assessment of the intellectual potential of particular racial or social groups. The Flynn effect, that for a hundred years has added 3 to 5 IQ points to average scores of Western nations makes clear that IQ test results are heavily influenced by environmental factors, though what the key factors are, whether cultural, dietary, or disease-related remains to be determined.

    Because we can and usually use specific part of the brain to do certain and correlated task this in my poorly developed neurobiological view, don’t mean we have “separated” parts of our brains even because all this “sub-systems” tend to interact one each other and often act together. For example when we are thinking in mathematical way to solve some problem we, I believe, need neutralize certain irrelevant parts of the brain or avoid certain operationality style (accessing a combinatory part of the brain at the same time) that it’s not useful at least in some moments of this task. To solve or try to solve a math problem we don’t need, conventionally speaking, to be funny to do this task. So combinatory style of parts of the brain that are responsible for humor sense is not being accessed. I don’t believe in separated parts but in relatively mutually decentralized parts. If I’m not saying too much pedantic silliness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    Quite possibly true. However, it was provided by Mensa and accepted by them as such. As you can probably figure out from my comments, I don't think it's a very good test of IQ.

    The ideal IQ test should consist of
    (1) a battery of many diverse tests (each tapping at different ability)
    (2) items you should not be familiar with (training to test reduces tests power)

    Of course, ideal IQ test does not really exist, but the latter tests, as you see, was missing the point (1) for everyone, and in your case also missed point (2).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    It just came to me today that Chanda Chisala does not simply claim IQ estimation for Gabon is wrong, but also the size of the standard deviation (assumed to be 12).


    Assume SD=12, and supposed IQ of 145 ("The actual average IQ score of these elite Scrabble players, derived directly from their SAT scores, would be approximately 145. "). Now, Gabon have a very young population. By looking at Gabon demographics, we can see that roughly 25% of Gabon population are male in age group 20-60 (i ignore women because there does not seem to be women at all in scrabble even in top 50 in wespa rating, and no women in any top 10 of the scrabble classique).

    Now, correct my calculations if I am wrong, I may did some stupid mistake.
    In first column is assumed mean population of Gabon with SD, then percentage/number of people above the threshold.

    above 115IQ Above 130IQ Above 145 IQ
    110 IQ 12 SD - - 0.17/722
    105 IQ 12 SD - - 0.042/178
    100 IQ 12 SD 10.5/44625 0.62/2635 0.00884/37
    100 IQ 15 SD 15/63000 2.27/9647 0.135/573
    85 IQ 12 SD 0.62/2635 0.0084/35 0.0000287/1
    85 IQ 15 SD 2.27/9647 0.135/573 0.0032/13
    80 IQ 12 SD /722 /6 /0

    Note that with IQ 100 and SD 12, there would be 37 people in Gabon who could be top players.

    I have counted Gabon players.

    There are SEVEN unique players during last few years in top10.

    I consider it extremely unlikely, that from 37 most intelligent people in Gabon (almost one in five) would decide to become scrabble players.

    In fact, with SD 12, there would be something like 128 eligible players with mean IQ 105; and more than 700 with mean IQ of 110. Now, with 700 people eligible, 1% of them deciding to dedicate their lifes to obscure game is plausible, or at least not preposterous; but then, it would mean there are 700+ people with IQ 145 not playing scrabble. What would be the probability, that they show up only in scrabble?

    Note, that one may argue that we do not see those geniuses because they have not access to education, they are poor, live in villages and so on. If yes, then actually the pool of potential elite scrabble players would be smaller; if a genius lives in a god forgotten village and get a decent education, then surely he cant also afford money to get ticket and a visa and become good scrabble player (as this requires a lot of training).

    In short, IF elite scrabble player would have to be around 145 IQ, THEN SD of Gabon cannot be realistically be 12. No way.

    But note, that at IQ=100 and with SD=15, there would be 573 potential Scrabble elite players in Gabon (and again, remember this is OVERestimation). It would mean that 1.2% decided to become Scrabble players. Well, that's a lot. Yes, it is not totally outlandish claim, but again, what are the rest of 500 geniuses doing? The wikipedia tells me Gabon has public education, universities. 87% is literate. There should be at least few genius Gabon scientists. Also, you cannot have few geniuses without also few of very good ones and so on.

    You cannot realistically claim that environment depresses IQ, because it would depress equally all subscores, and not somehow magically leaving mathematical skills needed in Scrabble intact. Otherwise, it would not be that different from my speculations above. If environment depresses only large part of population, then, obviously, the pool of eligible players would be even lower, meaning scrabble would have to be insanely popular.

    I like most of your arguments and points, but not this one so much:

    You cannot realistically claim that environment depresses IQ, because it would depress equally all subscores, and not somehow magically leaving mathematical skills needed in Scrabble intact.

    There are two things going on that makes this possible. First, not everyone in Gabon has a problem environment. It is quite possible that there is a large cohort which has a poor environment and dominates the statistics. If we posit (I’m not proving this here, clearly) an elite with both the best genetics and environment in Gabon then that would help explain what we see.

    Second, I don’t think we can a priori rule out the possibility that environment will depress the subscores to different degrees (not all or nothing, just greater or lesser effects). It’s also possible that environmental insults are time dependent (e.g. I think there is some support for prenatal damage at particular times causing idiosyncratic intellectual damage).

    Lastly, if I take “You cannot realistically claim that environment depresses IQ” literally then I emphatically disagree with you (a counterexample is lead poisoning). Did you mean something like “and that this explains the IQ/Scrabble results we see for Gabon”?

    As I (and others, including you IIRC) have said we really need to do real IQ measurements of Gabonese in general and their Scrabble players in particular. Based on the Lynn reference I posted above I think his Gabon estimate is based on neighboring countries (anyone who KNOWS please confirm/deny).

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    In this I mean that if the argument goes "Gabon, Nigeria etc education, iq scores are depressed because of the environment" then it should depress also the "incredible Scrabble skills"; it does not, hence it cannot be environment depressing biological scores of all population.


    If we posit (I’m not proving this here, clearly) an elite with both the best genetics and environment in Gabon then that would help explain what we see.
     
    IF (as I have written in on eof the comments above), if it only "biologically" depresses part (say 90%) of the population, then, IF elite player need something like IQ -145 and SD = 15, THEN there would be something like 50 people even able to play at this level in Gabon - and the idea, that more than 10% of them decided to play Scrabble seems to me unbelieveable (161 people if you accept IQ140 - still, almost 5% of most intelligent people deciding to go for scrabble!). IF however this is believeable somehow, THEN so are alternatives: lower mean IQ for whole population and maybe a bit lower mean IQ for top elite Scrabble players (like IQ 85, SD15 and threshold 140, or IQ85, threshold 135 and so on).

    So, IMO, either you can't believe in the environment depressing biological base of iq (lead poisoning, nutrition etc) as explanation of what we see, OR you have to also accept the alternative hypothesis of lower IQ mean (because IF you believe in environmental explanation, you would have to accept at least one of the following a] insane popularity of the scrabble attracting large percent of the most intelligent people in the country b] the mean iq of top elite players of being lower than 145).

    I mean by the above, NOT "environmental explanation is impossible", but rather "if environmental explanation is possible, THEN it can't be the only explanation, nor the most parsimonious one".

    IMO even 1% of the most intelligent people in the country going for some obscure scrabble seems astonishing, but at least believeable. But 5%? 10%? That's... let's say possible, but only if you think there are no really other options for intelligent people in Gabon.

    Besides, a large number of people at IQ>145 means much more people at IQ>130, IQ>115 and so on - and with large number of people like this, you would expect some other evidence: patents, highly-quoted scientists and so on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    The second one was not IQ test.

    Quite possibly true. However, it was provided by Mensa and accepted by them as such. As you can probably figure out from my comments, I don’t think it’s a very good test of IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    The ideal IQ test should consist of
    (1) a battery of many diverse tests (each tapping at different ability)
    (2) items you should not be familiar with (training to test reduces tests power)

    Of course, ideal IQ test does not really exist, but the latter tests, as you see, was missing the point (1) for everyone, and in your case also missed point (2).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Michaeloh

    Indicating an inability of Europeans to think things through, with the result that they now face a genocidal tide of Muslim settlers intent on conquest by the womb not the sword, plus a mass of highly philoprogenitive African fleeing Muslim persecution
     
    .

    First, you are confusing intelligence with wisdom. The fact that many Euro elites pursue destructive immigration policies hardly makes them stupid, it is an indictment of their values. Secondly- destructive to whom? Oftentimes not the elites nor their employers who are protected from the downside of immigration, in fact benefit from lower wages and even more importantly use immigrants as cannon fodder in their battle against the real enemy, a coherent, nationalist middle class. Once the great middle class is fully suppressed the taming of low IQ 3rd world illiterates would seem trivial.

    The fact that many Euro elites pursue destructive immigration policies hardly makes them stupid, it is an indictment of their values. Secondly- destructive to whom? Oftentimes not the elites nor their employers who are protected from the downside of immigration

    This is at a tangent to the current discussion, though an interesting point. Those I would consider the stupids are the middle-class progs. happily promoting the destruction of their own gene pool. The elite probably have no intention of mixing their genes with the lower orders of mankind, or whatever race. Whether they succeed in creating a globe-spanning, multi-racial elite remains to be seen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Hardly make them stupid

    Easily make them evil and morally stupid.
    , @Michaeloh

    Those I would consider the stupids are the middle-class progs. happily promoting the destruction of their own gene pool.
     
    Again, you have confused intelligence for good values, or wisdom. The middle class progs who favor policies which are destructive of their own gene pool are rarely stupid in my experience. But they are status seeking weaklings who find the hate whitey narrative to be both a career and social ladder. A related group are simply tools (i.e. Employees) of the Elite (whom benefit from these policies) often times chosen for their position on the basis of their competence in cognitive tasks ( i.e. Journalist/propagandists). The middle class progs aren't stupid, they simply value their own status and immediate gratification over that of you, me, and their own progeny. Often intelligent,rarely wise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Michaeloh

    "This totally destroys the Fascistic idea of ranking all humanity with an IQ label, and granting them status accordingly."

     

    Good work, Holmes. You've uncovered the Fascist conspiracy that secretly controls cognitive science.

    Good work, Holmes. You’ve uncovered the Fascist conspiracy that secretly controls cognitive science.

    Elementary, my dear Watson.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Chanda Chisala
    I'll respond one more time and we can continue the discussion later.

    Thanks, that’s sound argument, but still – if Gabon’s results would be so good, then we ought to see something more than just the good Scrabble results.
     
    It seems you haven't fully followed my argument, which is the only reason you would commit this obvious circular reasoning fallacy.

    The whole point is to decide which is the best explanation for the fact that Gabon does not produce many intellectual achievements (if any) -- is it genetically lower IQ or environmentally lower IQ (relative to whites). You can't use that same fact (that they don't achieve much) in your argument to dismiss a theory you disfavor for why they don't achieve much (see, it even sounds like a circle!). And it doesn't matter if there have been more "evidence" supposedly pointing in one direction (racial hypothesis). Science is not democracy. We continue investigating precisely for the purpose of establishing if we have read the direction of the "evidence" correctly.

    A biological hypothesis should not allow exceptions. If a certain country does not have fast runners in 100 meters because their adults have extremely weak legs (the strength of 11 year old children's legs), they should also not run fast in the 5,000 km (or any other race requiring adult legs) because children's legs CAN'T permit children to run fast in the 5,000 km either (or do long jump, or high jump, etc). We need only ONE adult-leg-dependent competitive race, which children still can't win, to bring into question our hypothesis about that country's legs, especially if there is a competing alternative hypothesis that would still stand.

    African (adults) supposedly have the cognitive abilities of 11 year old white children. There is no cognitive activity -- academic or games -- which 11 year old white children (including the very best among them) can perform on the level of full grown adults (and this doesn't work even if you randomly decide that Africans are equaivalent to 12 or 14 year old whites at IQ 85 or something). There should be no activities that are an exception (and no, I do not believe that forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would make them become the world champions of any activity; it would have been done by now).

    And yet Africans have exceptions, which just happen to be in areas that do not need book learning. And when they go to a country with books (and other resources), they seem to do just as well as the people in that country academically, EXACTLY AS the alternative theory would predict, even when they are the children of the migrants (no evident huge regression toward the mean for the 2 SD IQ deficit. Remember that the children of black AMERICAN elites do show huge regression -- performing below poor white children -- despite their deficit being only 1 SD compared to the 2SD for Africans; and much of that racial hypothesis "evidence" has been based on "experiments" with black Americans).

    Racial hypothesists have to claim that games (like Scrabble and checkers) are just an exception for Africans, while they can't find a SINGLE exception for those white (or Asian or Jewish) children around the entire world, with similar (or higher) intelligence as Africans (Gabon probably has the mental equivalent of 10 or 9 year old white children and maybe 7 year old Jewish children!?). If biology is so strong that it permits no exceptions for children versus adults (just as it also apparently permits no exception for women versus men), then WHY does it permit exceptions for Africans ONLY.

    Thank you for the debate.

    p/s: the research you cite about number of years determining Scrabble performance most likely has the causality wrong: in general, you're likely to spend more hours/years because you are (genetically) talented (for example, Google the age at which Nigel Richards, the best ever Scrabble player, started playing scrabble -- pretty late, which is consistent with causality being the other way around: he became obsessed when he saw how dominant he was). But this point is moot because it is already the argument of hereditarians; the opposite -- hours/years of practice as the most significant differentiator -- is the argument of (radical)
    environmentalists (as popularized by Malcolm Gladwell). This is why it seems to you (as you stated somewhere above) that I tend to ignore a lot of alternative explanations to this Scrabble phenomenon. It is because I am quite acquainted with the different arguments from the two sides. I have to ignore most of them precisely because they are not consistent with the position I am opposing, which is why I want the full hereditarian racial hypothesists to answer my questions (they're mute or they make logical/calculation mistakes, but their faith remains happily unfazed!).

    Thanks. Will take a break now before I end up rewriting my two articles here!

    Thank you very much for the answer. I appreciate you have committed your time to write such a long and thoughtful answer. Also, I realise that you may not read my rejoinder very soon, or maybe not at all.

    Nevertheless, I will use this occassion to think aloud. No new arguments here really – simply, writing helps me to think about your arguments.

    A biological hypothesis should not allow exceptions.

    That’s generally true; but I am not postulating an exception. Rather, I am noticing that while indeed every mental game requires (some) intelligence, there are many faces to intelligence, the gaps on subtests between whites/blacks really are different, and in many mental games the training and experience means a lot.

    African (adults) supposedly have the cognitive abilities of 11 year old white children. There is no cognitive activity — academic or games — which 11 year old white children (including the very best among them) can perform on the level of full grown adults (and this doesn’t work even if you randomly decide that Africans are equaivalent to 12 or 14 year old whites at IQ 85 or something). There should be no activities that are an exception (and no, I do not believe that forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would make them become the world champions of any activity; it would have been done by now).

    That’s true, though I would love to dispute the comparison of 12-14 y/o children to 85IQ grownups. WHile I have read this many times, it simply does not believeable, rather like an oversimplification of things. However, since I do not have anything to back this except my intuition, I will just stop.

    However, with 85IQ and average African being equivalent to 12 or 14 years old whites means there still would be a lot of young adult male Africans being equivalent to grown up males; with SD=12, 2635 above 115, and with SD=15, 9647 above 115; Hence while I agree that “forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would [WOULD NOT] make them become the world champions of any activity;”, i do not think this is applicable here, because we are NOT talking about kids, but about people above 100, 115, 130 or 145IQ.

    Also, I do not “randomly decide”. Simply, it seems to me that no matter what large is the correlation between IQ and scrabble, you have decisively proven that Gabon’s IQ _can not_ be 64 or 70 and it has to be higher. The point is how much higher.

    Without the data about gender composition at amateur level of Scrabble (championship+entries) it’s hard for me to answer the rest (i.e. whether the gender differences are really that big); all I have found are lists of players without their gender given, only their names, and frankly I gave up after trying to count female/male names quite quickly. I will only note that even if there would a lot of girls trying to compete, then may simply quickly find out that you need to fixate on Scrabble and then they would resign; or they may find out that in Scrabble you win by memorizing the words, mentally rotating them, quickly recognising shapes and calculating scores and they might find that boring. Hence disparities (I speculate) might be explained by self-selection.

    Also, if Scrabble requires some cognitive abilities, then the SD females/males may be large; for visuospatial reasoning, even the hardest proponents of “gender similarity hypothesis” will admit that the differences between boys/girls are high, and – what’s more important – they seem to become larger as the children mature.

    And yet Africans have exceptions, which just happen to be in areas that do not need book learning.

    Except that it does not seem that those winners are NOT poor children with no access to books.

    http://interlochenpublicradio.org/post/and-no-1-scrabble-nation-world#stream/0

    “Ikolo, who’s also a university mathematician, came up with lists of five-letter words and distributed them to his players, including Jighere the world champion, to train them how to block the board. The coach says, armed with these, the Nigerians could take on and beat competitors playing seven-eight- or even nine-letter words. ”

    Gabon also seem to have universities and mandatory education, and 87% literacy rate.

    Nevertheless, by “environmental depression” we may understand:
    (1) Something which biologically lowers IQ (lead, lack of nutrition, parasites). That would lower “g” and would mean that also there should not be scrabble players (because it cannot be it just lowers “g” enough to depress education scores and everything else except “g” needed for Scrabble). If it would affect only part of population, leaving 10% intact, then with your estimation of required IQ for elite Scrabble players there would be not enough people to become elite players – if I am wrong, it would left 50 or so people with IQ over 145 assuming mean IQ 100 and SD15. To assume that 7 of them decided to become professional scrabble players is not believeable.

    (2) Something which does not depress biological fundaments of IQ. but only deprives of education. Now, that would indeed explain scrabble, though it would mean more 1 in 100 top IQ people in Gabon decides to become Scrabble players. 1% for such a game means really a lot, IMO.
    Obviously, in any case, for so many players from Gabon become elite players would need the game (scrabble classique) MUST be insanely more popular in Gabon than in France (that, or Gabon’s mean IQ would have to be insanely higher than France’s).

    I tried to search for data on Gabon alone for immigrants performation outside Africa, and it seems most which seems to have the data is behind the paywalls, so I give that this point is plausible. But why then this lack of education would depress IQ tests which does not require actually anything besides understanding operations on basic numbers, or mental rotation of objects? Why access to books is actually required to excel at Raven’s coloured matrices? That’s a puzzle.

    Now, the argument about causality in training/being good at scrabble is sound and I had not thought about that, but what about the claim that “ratings are correlated only with number of years playing scrabble, not initial differences in abilities”?

    I am really tired, so forgive me the errors: I spent several hours today searching for data about gender composition of scrabble at all age groups, the educational achievements of Gabonese immigrants and so on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for providing http://interlochenpublicradio.org/post/and-no-1-scrabble-nation-world#stream/0

    That offers some good explanations as for why we would see Scrabble outperformance relative to other games in Nigeria. For example: "And yet Scrabble has caught on in Nigeria in a big way, among veterans and youth" and "Nigerians have been credited with perfecting that tactic under the tutorship of senior team coach, Prince Anthony Ikolo."
    If only they were so passionate about improving their water supply: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-26/nigerian-water-shortage-is-bigger-killer-than-boko-haram-cities

    and it seems most which seems to have the data is behind the paywalls
     
    Please see my libgen.io comment earlier.

    I spent several hours today searching for data about gender composition of scrabble at all age groups, the educational achievements of Gabonese immigrants and so on.
     
    Thanks for all your work bringing more data and insight to this discussion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous White Male
    First of all, your comment toward me was rather pointless and neither understood my point nor what I believe. But, I will address two of your points.

    "Why would IQ not have a strong genetic component? No one disputes that IQ tests measure verbal and numerical reasoning abilities, and there is surely evidence available already to show that such abilities have a large genetic component."

    But, this is not what leftist and blank slate proponents admit, is it? They do not want to acknowledge that people are born with completely different abilities, all of which are genetic. Since this leads to the reasonable conclusion that different races have differing abilities, as measured by statistical sampling, they must try to expunge anything that shows that there are differences between the races since that would show that they do not want a reality based model of the Universe.

    "The question you ignore is whether IQ measures anything other than verbal and numerical reasoning."

    I didn't even address this, since it had nothing to do with my comment. However, whatever it does measure correlates well with certain outcomes, such as success in life or with creative productivity. An IQ test is an index of general ability to solve problems and understand concepts. IQ and intelligence are synonymous but not analogous. High IQ is not the whole and sole formula for success. There is much more to success than IQ.

    Even the innocuous paragraph above is taboo for the scientific community to agree with publicly. Why? Because IQ tests can be statistically tabulated and have shown that different races have different mean IQ scores. This is anathema to the left. To admit this would force them to acknowledge that all races are not interchangeable. And since that is a lie they have pushed for almost a century now, it would require them to admit that their policies were not in everyone's best interests. But, because they have presented themselves as the supreme arbitrators of morality, they could never admit this. This is not science. Science is dispassionate about the results it obtains. If they were wrong about this, they could be wrong about say, climate change. And leftist arguments tend to lean toward, "Science has proven my position!" "Oh, really? How has it been proven?" "You obviously are a hater. Everybody knows its true".

    But, this is not what leftist and blank slate proponents admit, is it? They do not want to acknowledge that people are born with completely different abilities, all of which are genetic. Since this leads to the reasonable conclusion that different races have differing abilities, as measured by statistical sampling, they must try to expunge anything that shows that there are differences between the races since that would show that they do not want a reality based model of the Universe.

    I’m not a blank slater. But I don’t think IQ measures intelligence as intelligence is intelligently defined (see #319).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • First, you are confusing intelligence with wisdom.

    If intelligence, as you define it, does not yield wisdom, perhaps you need to revise your notion of intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    People must understand that because intelligence is a broader and structural concept so there are many ways to be smart.

    Wisdom would be the extreme expression or manifestation of intelligence in qualitative ways. We all are smart avg and dumb everyday, every month, be wise would be try to achieve a progressive generalization of correct judgments/be smart and don't commit more "de novo" mistakes.
    , @Michaeloh

    If intelligence, as you define it, does not yield wisdom, perhaps you need to revise your notion of intelligence.
     
    Intelligence is unecessary to wisdom, as the slow kid in school with good values demonstrates. On the other hand remarkably intelligent people with poor values litter history; The Nazis and the Bolsheviks had amongst them some very intelligent people. But were they wise?

    As I said, you confuse intelligence with wisdom, or if you prefer, good values.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Chanda Chisala
    I'll respond one more time and we can continue the discussion later.

    Thanks, that’s sound argument, but still – if Gabon’s results would be so good, then we ought to see something more than just the good Scrabble results.
     
    It seems you haven't fully followed my argument, which is the only reason you would commit this obvious circular reasoning fallacy.

    The whole point is to decide which is the best explanation for the fact that Gabon does not produce many intellectual achievements (if any) -- is it genetically lower IQ or environmentally lower IQ (relative to whites). You can't use that same fact (that they don't achieve much) in your argument to dismiss a theory you disfavor for why they don't achieve much (see, it even sounds like a circle!). And it doesn't matter if there have been more "evidence" supposedly pointing in one direction (racial hypothesis). Science is not democracy. We continue investigating precisely for the purpose of establishing if we have read the direction of the "evidence" correctly.

    A biological hypothesis should not allow exceptions. If a certain country does not have fast runners in 100 meters because their adults have extremely weak legs (the strength of 11 year old children's legs), they should also not run fast in the 5,000 km (or any other race requiring adult legs) because children's legs CAN'T permit children to run fast in the 5,000 km either (or do long jump, or high jump, etc). We need only ONE adult-leg-dependent competitive race, which children still can't win, to bring into question our hypothesis about that country's legs, especially if there is a competing alternative hypothesis that would still stand.

    African (adults) supposedly have the cognitive abilities of 11 year old white children. There is no cognitive activity -- academic or games -- which 11 year old white children (including the very best among them) can perform on the level of full grown adults (and this doesn't work even if you randomly decide that Africans are equaivalent to 12 or 14 year old whites at IQ 85 or something). There should be no activities that are an exception (and no, I do not believe that forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would make them become the world champions of any activity; it would have been done by now).

    And yet Africans have exceptions, which just happen to be in areas that do not need book learning. And when they go to a country with books (and other resources), they seem to do just as well as the people in that country academically, EXACTLY AS the alternative theory would predict, even when they are the children of the migrants (no evident huge regression toward the mean for the 2 SD IQ deficit. Remember that the children of black AMERICAN elites do show huge regression -- performing below poor white children -- despite their deficit being only 1 SD compared to the 2SD for Africans; and much of that racial hypothesis "evidence" has been based on "experiments" with black Americans).

    Racial hypothesists have to claim that games (like Scrabble and checkers) are just an exception for Africans, while they can't find a SINGLE exception for those white (or Asian or Jewish) children around the entire world, with similar (or higher) intelligence as Africans (Gabon probably has the mental equivalent of 10 or 9 year old white children and maybe 7 year old Jewish children!?). If biology is so strong that it permits no exceptions for children versus adults (just as it also apparently permits no exception for women versus men), then WHY does it permit exceptions for Africans ONLY.

    Thank you for the debate.

    p/s: the research you cite about number of years determining Scrabble performance most likely has the causality wrong: in general, you're likely to spend more hours/years because you are (genetically) talented (for example, Google the age at which Nigel Richards, the best ever Scrabble player, started playing scrabble -- pretty late, which is consistent with causality being the other way around: he became obsessed when he saw how dominant he was). But this point is moot because it is already the argument of hereditarians; the opposite -- hours/years of practice as the most significant differentiator -- is the argument of (radical)
    environmentalists (as popularized by Malcolm Gladwell). This is why it seems to you (as you stated somewhere above) that I tend to ignore a lot of alternative explanations to this Scrabble phenomenon. It is because I am quite acquainted with the different arguments from the two sides. I have to ignore most of them precisely because they are not consistent with the position I am opposing, which is why I want the full hereditarian racial hypothesists to answer my questions (they're mute or they make logical/calculation mistakes, but their faith remains happily unfazed!).

    Thanks. Will take a break now before I end up rewriting my two articles here!

    The whole point is to decide which is the best explanation for the fact that Gabon does not produce many intellectual achievements (if any) — is it genetically lower IQ or environmentally lower IQ (relative to whites).

    The first part is correct: “The whole point is to decide which is the best explanation for the fact that Gabon does not produce many intellectual achievements (if any)”

    The last part is a false dichotomy. http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/fallacies/false-dilemma.php

    Hopefully you will address my earlier points in a more serious fashion once you return from your break.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto

    Your need to split hairs about this repeatedly is indicative of an insecure, neurotic individual. Maybe that’s what your link indicated?
     
    I'm insecure, maybe it's reflects in my intellectual humility...

    MY LORD, you do everything fine isn't**

    You give higher self-esteem to their.... moronic sons...

    I will expect little more when you start to REFUTE point by point my comment and not show me what you know about IQ.

    It’s entertaining to see these statements in two successive comments from you:

    I have exceptional verbal abstraction skills.

    I’m insecure, maybe it’s reflects in my intellectual humility…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    What for you is a simple contradiction for me it's just the self knowledge. I know where I'm good and I'm usually very good here. But I also know where I'm very bad, simple and plain stupid. For example in geometry I'm completely stupid, at retarded levels. ;)

    We live in the world where be humble/be arrogant has been excessively literalized. Or you are saint without ego or you are a devil with a gigantic ego??? Be a false totally humble look better for you?

    This remind me this IQ--intelligence and racial differences debate because we have in one side people who always try to act as a humble group, "everyone is equal", "everyone is capable", isn't?? In other side we have those who say otherwise, the "non humble" deplorable ones.

    Intellectually humble is not the same that lower intellectual self esteem but specially be capable to know their own limitations and be always open minded to accept their mistakes. What I'm. Do you knew I accepted that no there multiple intelligence theory?? I already commented here about it.

    Welcome to the world of intrapersonal skills, do you have it??
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Santoculto
    I said it's ALL about the jews* where*

    I said the core-group responsible for what is going in western world IS jewish, to start...

    But what i said, malignant attitudes are not exclusively jewish. It's not simplistic, it's just what this structure work, just like a trojan horse.

    try to argue in the next...

    and refute point by point, please.

    Another try:

    Jews are almost certainly the most responsible ethnic group promoting ideas that undermine Western cultural cohesion and encouraging massive and unnecessary third world immigration to the West.

    But I believe that despite this malicious and clearly destructive behavior by far too many influential Jews, the single greatest factor that is causing the destruction of Western societies today comes from the brain dead behavior of the white liberal and the treachery of the cuckservative politician. Their inability to stand up for their own culture, their own civilization, their own people, while embracing the hatred that is often preached by too many Jews, is the single greatest problem faced by the West. Without these fools and traitors, we would not be where we are today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    You believe??
    Are you not sure??

    "Single greatest factor"

    Simplistic???

    Blame the useful idiots, ok.

    How this people dominates every important political key-position?? ;)

    Last try??
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It just came to me today that Chanda Chisala does not simply claim IQ estimation for Gabon is wrong, but also the size of the standard deviation (assumed to be 12).

    Assume SD=12, and supposed IQ of 145 (“The actual average IQ score of these elite Scrabble players, derived directly from their SAT scores, would be approximately 145. “). Now, Gabon have a very young population. By looking at Gabon demographics, we can see that roughly 25% of Gabon population are male in age group 20-60 (i ignore women because there does not seem to be women at all in scrabble even in top 50 in wespa rating, and no women in any top 10 of the scrabble classique).

    Now, correct my calculations if I am wrong, I may did some stupid mistake.
    In first column is assumed mean population of Gabon with SD, then percentage/number of people above the threshold.

    above 115IQ Above 130IQ Above 145 IQ
    110 IQ 12 SD – – 0.17/722
    105 IQ 12 SD – – 0.042/178
    100 IQ 12 SD 10.5/44625 0.62/2635 0.00884/37
    100 IQ 15 SD 15/63000 2.27/9647 0.135/573
    85 IQ 12 SD 0.62/2635 0.0084/35 0.0000287/1
    85 IQ 15 SD 2.27/9647 0.135/573 0.0032/13
    80 IQ 12 SD /722 /6 /0

    Note that with IQ 100 and SD 12, there would be 37 people in Gabon who could be top players.

    I have counted Gabon players.

    There are SEVEN unique players during last few years in top10.

    I consider it extremely unlikely, that from 37 most intelligent people in Gabon (almost one in five) would decide to become scrabble players.

    In fact, with SD 12, there would be something like 128 eligible players with mean IQ 105; and more than 700 with mean IQ of 110. Now, with 700 people eligible, 1% of them deciding to dedicate their lifes to obscure game is plausible, or at least not preposterous; but then, it would mean there are 700+ people with IQ 145 not playing scrabble. What would be the probability, that they show up only in scrabble?

    Note, that one may argue that we do not see those geniuses because they have not access to education, they are poor, live in villages and so on. If yes, then actually the pool of potential elite scrabble players would be smaller; if a genius lives in a god forgotten village and get a decent education, then surely he cant also afford money to get ticket and a visa and become good scrabble player (as this requires a lot of training).

    In short, IF elite scrabble player would have to be around 145 IQ, THEN SD of Gabon cannot be realistically be 12. No way.

    But note, that at IQ=100 and with SD=15, there would be 573 potential Scrabble elite players in Gabon (and again, remember this is OVERestimation). It would mean that 1.2% decided to become Scrabble players. Well, that’s a lot. Yes, it is not totally outlandish claim, but again, what are the rest of 500 geniuses doing? The wikipedia tells me Gabon has public education, universities. 87% is literate. There should be at least few genius Gabon scientists. Also, you cannot have few geniuses without also few of very good ones and so on.

    You cannot realistically claim that environment depresses IQ, because it would depress equally all subscores, and not somehow magically leaving mathematical skills needed in Scrabble intact. Otherwise, it would not be that different from my speculations above. If environment depresses only large part of population, then, obviously, the pool of eligible players would be even lower, meaning scrabble would have to be insanely popular.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I like most of your arguments and points, but not this one so much:

    You cannot realistically claim that environment depresses IQ, because it would depress equally all subscores, and not somehow magically leaving mathematical skills needed in Scrabble intact.
     
    There are two things going on that makes this possible. First, not everyone in Gabon has a problem environment. It is quite possible that there is a large cohort which has a poor environment and dominates the statistics. If we posit (I'm not proving this here, clearly) an elite with both the best genetics and environment in Gabon then that would help explain what we see.

    Second, I don't think we can a priori rule out the possibility that environment will depress the subscores to different degrees (not all or nothing, just greater or lesser effects). It's also possible that environmental insults are time dependent (e.g. I think there is some support for prenatal damage at particular times causing idiosyncratic intellectual damage).

    Lastly, if I take "You cannot realistically claim that environment depresses IQ" literally then I emphatically disagree with you (a counterexample is lead poisoning). Did you mean something like "and that this explains the IQ/Scrabble results we see for Gabon"?

    As I (and others, including you IIRC) have said we really need to do real IQ measurements of Gabonese in general and their Scrabble players in particular. Based on the Lynn reference I posted above I think his Gabon estimate is based on neighboring countries (anyone who KNOWS please confirm/deny).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    An enhanced Darwinian fitness only made possible by the intellectual contributions of science and technology (medicine, food, fossil fuels) given to them by the unfit whites.
     
    Indicating an inability of Europeans to think things through, with the result that they now face a genocidal tide of Muslim settlers intent on conquest by the womb not the sword, plus a mass of highly philoprogenitive African fleeing Muslim persecution.

    Indicating an inability of Europeans to think things through, with the result that they now face a genocidal tide of Muslim settlers intent on conquest by the womb not the sword, plus a mass of highly philoprogenitive African fleeing Muslim persecution

    .

    First, you are confusing intelligence with wisdom. The fact that many Euro elites pursue destructive immigration policies hardly makes them stupid, it is an indictment of their values. Secondly- destructive to whom? Oftentimes not the elites nor their employers who are protected from the downside of immigration, in fact benefit from lower wages and even more importantly use immigrants as cannon fodder in their battle against the real enemy, a coherent, nationalist middle class. Once the great middle class is fully suppressed the taming of low IQ 3rd world illiterates would seem trivial.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    The fact that many Euro elites pursue destructive immigration policies hardly makes them stupid, it is an indictment of their values. Secondly- destructive to whom? Oftentimes not the elites nor their employers who are protected from the downside of immigration
     
    This is at a tangent to the current discussion, though an interesting point. Those I would consider the stupids are the middle-class progs. happily promoting the destruction of their own gene pool. The elite probably have no intention of mixing their genes with the lower orders of mankind, or whatever race. Whether they succeed in creating a globe-spanning, multi-racial elite remains to be seen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • This thought-provoking article by Chanda Chisala has generated what, for me, has been a useful discussion, some keys points of which I will venture to summarize:

    1. Those I have referred to as IQ-ists believe that IQ, representing an individual’s overall score on a battery of verbal reasoning tests, math puzzles, and pattern matching tasks, measures a unitary property of the central nervous system, which is designated intelligence.

    2. To the IQ-ist, the unitary nature of intelligence is established by the correlations between scores on the various puzzles comprising the IQ test. A mathematical construct named g, the exact nature of which probably very few people understand, represents the degree of correlation among tests and effectively conceals the rather limited degree of correlation that is actually observed, i.e., r-squared values less than 0.5.

    3. A biologist will generally understand the term intelligence more broadly than the IQ-ist and in a Darwinian sense. Thus they will usually include within the meaning of the term all cognitive activity that promotes the survival and reproductive success of the organism.

    In this respect, the Darwinian view is much closer to the commonsense understanding of intelligence, which the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines as:

    the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations … the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly …

    4. To the Darwinian, the skills required to perform well on an IQ test are extremely limited in range. They demonstrate the capacity to read with comprehension, write with clarity and add up, which are certainly adaptive for those who seek to ensure that there is food in the refrigerator by working at the Post Office or in some other clerical, bureaucratic, or middle-management job.

    In the jungle-dweller or the hunter-gatherer, however, the Darwinist would recognise intelligence in very different skills, including the ability to interpret the sights, and sounds, and smells of both predators and prey; to distinguish the poisonous mushroom among a thousand that are edible; to step from boulder to boulder across a creek in spate when one misstep could mean instant death; to cast a spear or shoot an arrow that saps the strength of an enraged bear, or a charging buffalo.

    5. In addition, the Darwinist will recognize as manifestations of intelligence a multitude of skills that the IQ-ist ignores but which are essential to the survival of mankind both primitive and modern: the ability to charm a maid or beguile a swain; the power to lead in battle, or sway the election crowd; the Machiavellian gift of manipulation; the ability to entertain; the power of technical innovation.

    6. Defined as the Darwinist sees it, the notion of intelligence as a unitary property of the central nervous system is untenable. The nerd who designs the combat aircraft is unlikely to have the coordination to fly it; the charismatic politician may be devoid of understanding in matters of economics, education, or military strategy; the pop singer who can fill a stadium, may be a political imbecile.

    7. The neurologist, examining the substrate of the cognitive activity giving rise to intelligent behavior sees the visual, olfactory, auditory, computational and other aspects of information processing occurring in separate specialized parts of the brain. To the neurologist, therefore, it is evident that aptitudes may vary according to the size, structure, and physiological properties of the various neural components of the brain involved. Thus the Australian aboriginal’s path-finding skill appears related to exceptional development of the visual cortex. Carl Gauss’s extraordinary mathematical gifts may have been due to the exceptional convolutions of his cerebral cortex, as observed at autopsy.

    8. In summary, the IQ-ists view of intelligence is valid only on the IQ-ist’s peculiar and tautological definitions of IQ and intelligence, viz: IQ = intelligence, and intelligence = IQ.

    And even then the definition of intelligence is weak, since it ignores the fact that scores on the components of the IQ test are not tightly correlated, which means that the math geek may have poor linguistic skills, with the result that their IQ reflects neither their mathematical competence nor their linguistic incompetence. Likewise, a literary genius with poor pattern-matching ability would have an IQ reflecting neither their gift nor their weakness.

    9. My conclusion is that if psychology is to advance in the field of intelligence assessment, it must greatly broaden the definition of intelligence and recognize the modularity of both the brain and its properties as manifest in intelligent behavior.

    10. In addition, there has been discussion of environmental influence on intelligence, which is critical to the assessment of the intellectual potential of particular racial or social groups. The Flynn effect, that for a hundred years has added 3 to 5 IQ points to average scores of Western nations makes clear that IQ test results are heavily influenced by environmental factors, though what the key factors are, whether cultural, dietary, or disease-related remains to be determined.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Because we can and usually use specific part of the brain to do certain and correlated task this in my poorly developed neurobiological view, don't mean we have "separated" parts of our brains even because all this "sub-systems" tend to interact one each other and often act together. For example when we are thinking in mathematical way to solve some problem we, I believe, need neutralize certain irrelevant parts of the brain or avoid certain operationality style (accessing a combinatory part of the brain at the same time) that it's not useful at least in some moments of this task. To solve or try to solve a math problem we don't need, conventionally speaking, to be funny to do this task. So combinatory style of parts of the brain that are responsible for humor sense is not being accessed. I don't believe in separated parts but in relatively mutually decentralized parts. If I'm not saying too much pedantic silliness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @CanSpeccy

    Africa is more diverse genetically than the rest of the world, and there are some tribes that are really quite smart, such as the Igbo. If those tribes had a mean of 100 and an SD of 15, it would explain the Scrabble “anomaly” without hypothesizing an environmental effect large enough to depress IQ by an SD.
     
    But you already argued that chess ability and IQ are not the same thing, confirming that there is more to intelligence than IQ. So why assume that Africans must have a high IQ to be top scrabble players? They may just have a high Scrabble Aptitude.

    This, of course, is unacceptable to an IQ-ist since it means that they are not necessarily smarter in some, and perhaps most, domains of cognitive activity than someone with a lower IQ than their own. This totally destroys the Fascistic idea of ranking all humanity with an IQ label, and granting them status accordingly.

    “This totally destroys the Fascistic idea of ranking all humanity with an IQ label, and granting them status accordingly.”

    Good work, Holmes. You’ve uncovered the Fascist conspiracy that secretly controls cognitive science.

    Read More
    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Good work, Holmes. You’ve uncovered the Fascist conspiracy that secretly controls cognitive science.
     
    Elementary, my dear Watson.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Chanda Chisala
    I'll respond one more time and we can continue the discussion later.

    Thanks, that’s sound argument, but still – if Gabon’s results would be so good, then we ought to see something more than just the good Scrabble results.
     
    It seems you haven't fully followed my argument, which is the only reason you would commit this obvious circular reasoning fallacy.

    The whole point is to decide which is the best explanation for the fact that Gabon does not produce many intellectual achievements (if any) -- is it genetically lower IQ or environmentally lower IQ (relative to whites). You can't use that same fact (that they don't achieve much) in your argument to dismiss a theory you disfavor for why they don't achieve much (see, it even sounds like a circle!). And it doesn't matter if there have been more "evidence" supposedly pointing in one direction (racial hypothesis). Science is not democracy. We continue investigating precisely for the purpose of establishing if we have read the direction of the "evidence" correctly.

    A biological hypothesis should not allow exceptions. If a certain country does not have fast runners in 100 meters because their adults have extremely weak legs (the strength of 11 year old children's legs), they should also not run fast in the 5,000 km (or any other race requiring adult legs) because children's legs CAN'T permit children to run fast in the 5,000 km either (or do long jump, or high jump, etc). We need only ONE adult-leg-dependent competitive race, which children still can't win, to bring into question our hypothesis about that country's legs, especially if there is a competing alternative hypothesis that would still stand.

    African (adults) supposedly have the cognitive abilities of 11 year old white children. There is no cognitive activity -- academic or games -- which 11 year old white children (including the very best among them) can perform on the level of full grown adults (and this doesn't work even if you randomly decide that Africans are equaivalent to 12 or 14 year old whites at IQ 85 or something). There should be no activities that are an exception (and no, I do not believe that forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would make them become the world champions of any activity; it would have been done by now).

    And yet Africans have exceptions, which just happen to be in areas that do not need book learning. And when they go to a country with books (and other resources), they seem to do just as well as the people in that country academically, EXACTLY AS the alternative theory would predict, even when they are the children of the migrants (no evident huge regression toward the mean for the 2 SD IQ deficit. Remember that the children of black AMERICAN elites do show huge regression -- performing below poor white children -- despite their deficit being only 1 SD compared to the 2SD for Africans; and much of that racial hypothesis "evidence" has been based on "experiments" with black Americans).

    Racial hypothesists have to claim that games (like Scrabble and checkers) are just an exception for Africans, while they can't find a SINGLE exception for those white (or Asian or Jewish) children around the entire world, with similar (or higher) intelligence as Africans (Gabon probably has the mental equivalent of 10 or 9 year old white children and maybe 7 year old Jewish children!?). If biology is so strong that it permits no exceptions for children versus adults (just as it also apparently permits no exception for women versus men), then WHY does it permit exceptions for Africans ONLY.

    Thank you for the debate.

    p/s: the research you cite about number of years determining Scrabble performance most likely has the causality wrong: in general, you're likely to spend more hours/years because you are (genetically) talented (for example, Google the age at which Nigel Richards, the best ever Scrabble player, started playing scrabble -- pretty late, which is consistent with causality being the other way around: he became obsessed when he saw how dominant he was). But this point is moot because it is already the argument of hereditarians; the opposite -- hours/years of practice as the most significant differentiator -- is the argument of (radical)
    environmentalists (as popularized by Malcolm Gladwell). This is why it seems to you (as you stated somewhere above) that I tend to ignore a lot of alternative explanations to this Scrabble phenomenon. It is because I am quite acquainted with the different arguments from the two sides. I have to ignore most of them precisely because they are not consistent with the position I am opposing, which is why I want the full hereditarian racial hypothesists to answer my questions (they're mute or they make logical/calculation mistakes, but their faith remains happily unfazed!).

    Thanks. Will take a break now before I end up rewriting my two articles here!

    You did not acknowledge good summary of your argument by CanSpeccy:

    http://www.unz.com/article/will-scrabble-have-the-last-word-on-the-iq-debate/#comment-1843589

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous White Male
    "No there such thing ”genetic nature of IQ”

    "IQ is a thing, literally, a two or three digit numbers."

    Again, your verbal abilities reflect low IQ. IQ means Intelligence Quotient. This is a result of the relationship between genetic factors. What you actually mean when you use the term IQ is "IQ test". An IQ test is not the same as the thing it measures. If IQ tests measure spatial ability (visualizing shapes and figures), mathematical ability (using logic to solve problems), language ability (solving word puzzles or recognizing words with jumbled letters etc.), and memory (recalling visual or aural information), the resulting quotient will have a "genetic basis" reflecting the level of existing intellectual capabilities. The IQ test (the results - aren't all tests about results?) measures things with a "genetic basis". Your need to split hairs about this repeatedly is indicative of an insecure, neurotic individual. Maybe that's what your link indicated?

    Your need to split hairs about this repeatedly is indicative of an insecure, neurotic individual. Maybe that’s what your link indicated?

    I’m insecure, maybe it’s reflects in my intellectual humility…

    MY LORD, you do everything fine isn’t**

    You give higher self-esteem to their…. moronic sons…

    I will expect little more when you start to REFUTE point by point my comment and not show me what you know about IQ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    It's entertaining to see these statements in two successive comments from you:

    I have exceptional verbal abstraction skills.
     

    I’m insecure, maybe it’s reflects in my intellectual humility…
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous White Male
    "No there such thing ”genetic nature of IQ”

    "IQ is a thing, literally, a two or three digit numbers."

    Again, your verbal abilities reflect low IQ. IQ means Intelligence Quotient. This is a result of the relationship between genetic factors. What you actually mean when you use the term IQ is "IQ test". An IQ test is not the same as the thing it measures. If IQ tests measure spatial ability (visualizing shapes and figures), mathematical ability (using logic to solve problems), language ability (solving word puzzles or recognizing words with jumbled letters etc.), and memory (recalling visual or aural information), the resulting quotient will have a "genetic basis" reflecting the level of existing intellectual capabilities. The IQ test (the results - aren't all tests about results?) measures things with a "genetic basis". Your need to split hairs about this repeatedly is indicative of an insecure, neurotic individual. Maybe that's what your link indicated?

    Again, your verbal abilities reflect low IQ.

    90% of your try of argumentation is IQistic, i think it’s you who ”have” lower IQ.

    I have exceptional verbal abstraction skills. Please, stop to write shit and REFUTE EVERY POINT if you want.

    A classical ”white-tard nationalist”, i imagine….

    IQ means Intelligence Quotient.

    oh my…

    This is a result of the relationship between genetic factors.


    This sentence…

    oh my…

    IQ as well any test is a abstractization of organic thing.

    What is literal, physical, AS WELL a behavior, is reduced to the abstract symbols.

    What you actually mean when you use the term IQ is “IQ test”. An IQ test is not the same as the thing it measures.

    ooooh

    If IQ tests measure spatial ability (visualizing shapes and figures)

    an

    mathematical ability (using logic to solve problems)

    an

    language ability (solving word puzzles or recognizing words with jumbled letters etc.)

    an

    and memory (recalling visual or aural information)

    an

    the resulting quotient will have a “genetic basis” reflecting the level of existing intellectual abilities.

    an.. diagnosis: you don’t understand nothing what i said, maybe my english is just terrible, maybe you have very lower verbal abstract skills… it’s likely.

    You’re just repeating the same known things everyone in this area know, it’s not a REFUTATION, it’s not just repetitive monologue.

    REFUTE point by point, if not, i will not answer more your comments.

    The IQ test (the results – aren’t all tests about results?) measures things with a “genetic basis”.

    things with a genetic basis, IQ is a vehicle, is a mean to reach a goal and goal is intelligence.

    I agree is need organize, hierarchize, summarize, create a way to identify easily, unify a plethora of organic things in such two a three single numbers.

    BUT, IQ is not intelligence, and when we want know the nature of what IQ express, what’s matter = intelligence, so it’s good avoid use this type of narrative ”search for genetic nature of IQ”… or not.

    in other and summarized words, stop to be IQist and learn the borders between IQ [the mean] and intelligence[ the goal, the end].

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @szopen
    Thanks, that's sound argument, but still - if Gabon's results would be so good, then we ought to see something more than just the good Scrabble results. If to high "g" indicates there ought to be successes in many fields, and we see the successes in only one of two fields, then the ockham razor suggests that many the exceptions are explained by exceptional theory, not by the general theory being false.

    As for: If your theory was true, the mathematicians would dominate at the top only if they were already the majority of the experienced players., the theory stated that at inexperienced or moderately experienced level, IQ matters, hence only high-IQ players enter the competition and start to play more seriously. Hence, mathematicians, Jewish etc may enter the game easily defeating competitors, and only later start to train.

    Remember, the studies show that experience matters A LOT in scrabble and the rating is directly correlated with years spending playing scrabble.

    I’ll respond one more time and we can continue the discussion later.

    Thanks, that’s sound argument, but still – if Gabon’s results would be so good, then we ought to see something more than just the good Scrabble results.

    It seems you haven’t fully followed my argument, which is the only reason you would commit this obvious circular reasoning fallacy.

    The whole point is to decide which is the best explanation for the fact that Gabon does not produce many intellectual achievements (if any) — is it genetically lower IQ or environmentally lower IQ (relative to whites). You can’t use that same fact (that they don’t achieve much) in your argument to dismiss a theory you disfavor for why they don’t achieve much (see, it even sounds like a circle!). And it doesn’t matter if there have been more “evidence” supposedly pointing in one direction (racial hypothesis). Science is not democracy. We continue investigating precisely for the purpose of establishing if we have read the direction of the “evidence” correctly.

    A biological hypothesis should not allow exceptions. If a certain country does not have fast runners in 100 meters because their adults have extremely weak legs (the strength of 11 year old children’s legs), they should also not run fast in the 5,000 km (or any other race requiring adult legs) because children’s legs CAN’T permit children to run fast in the 5,000 km either (or do long jump, or high jump, etc). We need only ONE adult-leg-dependent competitive race, which children still can’t win, to bring into question our hypothesis about that country’s legs, especially if there is a competing alternative hypothesis that would still stand.

    African (adults) supposedly have the cognitive abilities of 11 year old white children. There is no cognitive activity — academic or games — which 11 year old white children (including the very best among them) can perform on the level of full grown adults (and this doesn’t work even if you randomly decide that Africans are equaivalent to 12 or 14 year old whites at IQ 85 or something). There should be no activities that are an exception (and no, I do not believe that forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would make them become the world champions of any activity; it would have been done by now).

    And yet Africans have exceptions, which just happen to be in areas that do not need book learning. And when they go to a country with books (and other resources), they seem to do just as well as the people in that country academically, EXACTLY AS the alternative theory would predict, even when they are the children of the migrants (no evident huge regression toward the mean for the 2 SD IQ deficit. Remember that the children of black AMERICAN elites do show huge regression — performing below poor white children — despite their deficit being only 1 SD compared to the 2SD for Africans; and much of that racial hypothesis “evidence” has been based on “experiments” with black Americans).

    Racial hypothesists have to claim that games (like Scrabble and checkers) are just an exception for Africans, while they can’t find a SINGLE exception for those white (or Asian or Jewish) children around the entire world, with similar (or higher) intelligence as Africans (Gabon probably has the mental equivalent of 10 or 9 year old white children and maybe 7 year old Jewish children!?). If biology is so strong that it permits no exceptions for children versus adults (just as it also apparently permits no exception for women versus men), then WHY does it permit exceptions for Africans ONLY.

    Thank you for the debate.

    p/s: the research you cite about number of years determining Scrabble performance most likely has the causality wrong: in general, you’re likely to spend more hours/years because you are (genetically) talented (for example, Google the age at which Nigel Richards, the best ever Scrabble player, started playing scrabble — pretty late, which is consistent with causality being the other way around: he became obsessed when he saw how dominant he was). But this point is moot because it is already the argument of hereditarians; the opposite — hours/years of practice as the most significant differentiator — is the argument of (radical)
    environmentalists (as popularized by Malcolm Gladwell). This is why it seems to you (as you stated somewhere above) that I tend to ignore a lot of alternative explanations to this Scrabble phenomenon. It is because I am quite acquainted with the different arguments from the two sides. I have to ignore most of them precisely because they are not consistent with the position I am opposing, which is why I want the full hereditarian racial hypothesists to answer my questions (they’re mute or they make logical/calculation mistakes, but their faith remains happily unfazed!).

    Thanks. Will take a break now before I end up rewriting my two articles here!

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    You did not acknowledge good summary of your argument by CanSpeccy:

    http://www.unz.com/article/will-scrabble-have-the-last-word-on-the-iq-debate/#comment-1843589
    , @res

    The whole point is to decide which is the best explanation for the fact that Gabon does not produce many intellectual achievements (if any) — is it genetically lower IQ or environmentally lower IQ (relative to whites).
     
    The first part is correct: "The whole point is to decide which is the best explanation for the fact that Gabon does not produce many intellectual achievements (if any)"

    The last part is a false dichotomy. http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/fallacies/false-dilemma.php

    Hopefully you will address my earlier points in a more serious fashion once you return from your break.
    , @szopen
    Thank you very much for the answer. I appreciate you have committed your time to write such a long and thoughtful answer. Also, I realise that you may not read my rejoinder very soon, or maybe not at all.

    Nevertheless, I will use this occassion to think aloud. No new arguments here really - simply, writing helps me to think about your arguments.

    A biological hypothesis should not allow exceptions.
     
    That's generally true; but I am not postulating an exception. Rather, I am noticing that while indeed every mental game requires (some) intelligence, there are many faces to intelligence, the gaps on subtests between whites/blacks really are different, and in many mental games the training and experience means a lot.

    African (adults) supposedly have the cognitive abilities of 11 year old white children. There is no cognitive activity — academic or games — which 11 year old white children (including the very best among them) can perform on the level of full grown adults (and this doesn’t work even if you randomly decide that Africans are equaivalent to 12 or 14 year old whites at IQ 85 or something). There should be no activities that are an exception (and no, I do not believe that forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would make them become the world champions of any activity; it would have been done by now).
     
    That's true, though I would love to dispute the comparison of 12-14 y/o children to 85IQ grownups. WHile I have read this many times, it simply does not believeable, rather like an oversimplification of things. However, since I do not have anything to back this except my intuition, I will just stop.

    However, with 85IQ and average African being equivalent to 12 or 14 years old whites means there still would be a lot of young adult male Africans being equivalent to grown up males; with SD=12, 2635 above 115, and with SD=15, 9647 above 115; Hence while I agree that "forcing 11 year old kids to train four hours a week would [WOULD NOT] make them become the world champions of any activity;", i do not think this is applicable here, because we are NOT talking about kids, but about people above 100, 115, 130 or 145IQ.

    Also, I do not "randomly decide". Simply, it seems to me that no matter what large is the correlation between IQ and scrabble, you have decisively proven that Gabon's IQ _can not_ be 64 or 70 and it has to be higher. The point is how much higher.

    Without the data about gender composition at amateur level of Scrabble (championship+entries) it's hard for me to answer the rest (i.e. whether the gender differences are really that big); all I have found are lists of players without their gender given, only their names, and frankly I gave up after trying to count female/male names quite quickly. I will only note that even if there would a lot of girls trying to compete, then may simply quickly find out that you need to fixate on Scrabble and then they would resign; or they may find out that in Scrabble you win by memorizing the words, mentally rotating them, quickly recognising shapes and calculating scores and they might find that boring. Hence disparities (I speculate) might be explained by self-selection.

    Also, if Scrabble requires some cognitive abilities, then the SD females/males may be large; for visuospatial reasoning, even the hardest proponents of "gender similarity hypothesis" will admit that the differences between boys/girls are high, and - what's more important - they seem to become larger as the children mature.

    And yet Africans have exceptions, which just happen to be in areas that do not need book learning.
     
    Except that it does not seem that those winners are NOT poor children with no access to books.

    http://interlochenpublicradio.org/post/and-no-1-scrabble-nation-world#stream/0

    "Ikolo, who's also a university mathematician, came up with lists of five-letter words and distributed them to his players, including Jighere the world champion, to train them how to block the board. The coach says, armed with these, the Nigerians could take on and beat competitors playing seven-eight- or even nine-letter words. "

    Gabon also seem to have universities and mandatory education, and 87% literacy rate.

    Nevertheless, by "environmental depression" we may understand:
    (1) Something which biologically lowers IQ (lead, lack of nutrition, parasites). That would lower "g" and would mean that also there should not be scrabble players (because it cannot be it just lowers "g" enough to depress education scores and everything else except "g" needed for Scrabble). If it would affect only part of population, leaving 10% intact, then with your estimation of required IQ for elite Scrabble players there would be not enough people to become elite players - if I am wrong, it would left 50 or so people with IQ over 145 assuming mean IQ 100 and SD15. To assume that 7 of them decided to become professional scrabble players is not believeable.

    (2) Something which does not depress biological fundaments of IQ. but only deprives of education. Now, that would indeed explain scrabble, though it would mean more 1 in 100 top IQ people in Gabon decides to become Scrabble players. 1% for such a game means really a lot, IMO.
    Obviously, in any case, for so many players from Gabon become elite players would need the game (scrabble classique) MUST be insanely more popular in Gabon than in France (that, or Gabon's mean IQ would have to be insanely higher than France's).

    I tried to search for data on Gabon alone for immigrants performation outside Africa, and it seems most which seems to have the data is behind the paywalls, so I give that this point is plausible. But why then this lack of education would depress IQ tests which does not require actually anything besides understanding operations on basic numbers, or mental rotation of objects? Why access to books is actually required to excel at Raven's coloured matrices? That's a puzzle.

    Now, the argument about causality in training/being good at scrabble is sound and I had not thought about that, but what about the claim that "ratings are correlated only with number of years playing scrabble, not initial differences in abilities"?

    I am really tired, so forgive me the errors: I spent several hours today searching for data about gender composition of scrabble at all age groups, the educational achievements of Gabonese immigrants and so on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “No there such thing ”genetic nature of IQ”

    “IQ is a thing, literally, a two or three digit numbers.”

    Again, your verbal abilities reflect low IQ. IQ means Intelligence Quotient. This is a result of the relationship between genetic factors. What you actually mean when you use the term IQ is “IQ test”. An IQ test is not the same as the thing it measures. If IQ tests measure spatial ability (visualizing shapes and figures), mathematical ability (using logic to solve problems), language ability (solving word puzzles or recognizing words with jumbled letters etc.), and memory (recalling visual or aural information), the resulting quotient will have a “genetic basis” reflecting the level of existing intellectual capabilities. The IQ test (the results – aren’t all tests about results?) measures things with a “genetic basis”. Your need to split hairs about this repeatedly is indicative of an insecure, neurotic individual. Maybe that’s what your link indicated?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    Again, your verbal abilities reflect low IQ.
     
    90% of your try of argumentation is IQistic, i think it's you who ''have'' lower IQ.

    I have exceptional verbal abstraction skills. Please, stop to write shit and REFUTE EVERY POINT if you want.

    A classical ''white-tard nationalist'', i imagine....


    IQ means Intelligence Quotient.
     
    oh my...

    This is a result of the relationship between genetic factors.
     
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dbtLNG-6pFQ/VZafyVklWZI/AAAAAAAARH4/OBStDP-bwoE/s1600/dilma%2Bengra%25C3%25A7ada.jpg

    This sentence...

    oh my...

    IQ as well any test is a abstractization of organic thing.

    What is literal, physical, AS WELL a behavior, is reduced to the abstract symbols.


    What you actually mean when you use the term IQ is “IQ test”. An IQ test is not the same as the thing it measures.
     
    ooooh

    If IQ tests measure spatial ability (visualizing shapes and figures)
     
    an

    mathematical ability (using logic to solve problems)
     
    an

    language ability (solving word puzzles or recognizing words with jumbled letters etc.)
     
    an

    and memory (recalling visual or aural information)
     
    an

    the resulting quotient will have a “genetic basis” reflecting the level of existing intellectual abilities.
     
    an.. diagnosis: you don't understand nothing what i said, maybe my english is just terrible, maybe you have very lower verbal abstract skills... it's likely.

    You're just repeating the same known things everyone in this area know, it's not a REFUTATION, it's not just repetitive monologue.

    REFUTE point by point, if not, i will not answer more your comments.


    The IQ test (the results – aren’t all tests about results?) measures things with a “genetic basis”.
     
    things with a genetic basis, IQ is a vehicle, is a mean to reach a goal and goal is intelligence.

    I agree is need organize, hierarchize, summarize, create a way to identify easily, unify a plethora of organic things in such two a three single numbers.

    BUT, IQ is not intelligence, and when we want know the nature of what IQ express, what's matter = intelligence, so it's good avoid use this type of narrative ''search for genetic nature of IQ''... or not.

    in other and summarized words, stop to be IQist and learn the borders between IQ [the mean] and intelligence[ the goal, the end].

    , @Santoculto

    Your need to split hairs about this repeatedly is indicative of an insecure, neurotic individual. Maybe that’s what your link indicated?
     
    I'm insecure, maybe it's reflects in my intellectual humility...

    MY LORD, you do everything fine isn't**

    You give higher self-esteem to their.... moronic sons...

    I will expect little more when you start to REFUTE point by point my comment and not show me what you know about IQ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Chanda Chisala

    Are you trying to assert that the male tendency to fixate/obsess will not matter at all in youth Scrabble?
     
    If it was that simple, the boys would also outperform the WOMEN, not just the girls. They don't.

    The only factor that is parsimoniously consistent with this hierarchy is just intelligence, particularly mathematical.

    The only factor that is parsimoniously consistent with this hierarchy is just intelligence, particularly mathematical.

    As for parsimony…

    If you are proposing intelligence as a single explanatory factor then it seems to me you are implying a 2+ SD (Gabon’s <70 to 100) error in the estimate of African IQ as an indication of underlying genetic IQ. If this is incorrect please describe what exactly you are proposing. For example, describe the other factors in your model (as both szopen and I have done above).

    I consider an error (or environmental effect) of that magnitude unlikely. For this problem I think of parsimony in a statistical sense (see below). For a multifactorial explanation we might consider the estimated probability that each of our factors is true (e.g. how likely is the 80-85 genetic IQ I proposed above?). Once we have those, their product gives the estimate of the probability that our explanation could be true. Given this approach I would propose taking the MLE (Maximum Likelihood Estimate) of the proposed explanations as our most likely explanation.

    To relate this to our discussion with (somewhat) made up numbers, I consider a multifactorial explanation with the probability of the IQ portion as 0.2 (a 0.67 to 1 SD error in genetic estimate) and three other factors each of probability 0.5 (total probability 0.025) to be preferable to an IQ only estimate of a 2+ SD error, say probability 0.02.
    (for the peanut gallery, it doesn't get much less "IQist" than this, folks)

    If we want to have a serious conversation about parsimony this page might help focus the discussion: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/

    For example:

    Philosophical interest in these two notions of simplicity may be organized around answers to three basic questions;

    (i) How is simplicity to be defined? [Definition]

    (ii) What is the role of simplicity principles in different areas of inquiry? [Usage]

    (iii) Is there a rational justification for such simplicity principles? [Justification]

    This section delves into the kind of argument I am making above:

    5. Probabilistic/Statistical Justifications of Simplicity

    That section would be worth reading by the anti-IQists if they want to understand my arguments concerning g. In particular, looking at things like AIC and BIC in model evaluation provides a measure of the relative value of different factors (e.g. IQ vs. the other intelligence components) in terms of explanatory power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Chanda Chisala

    Are you trying to assert that the male tendency to fixate/obsess will not matter at all in youth Scrabble?
     
    If it was that simple, the boys would also outperform the WOMEN, not just the girls. They don't.

    The only factor that is parsimoniously consistent with this hierarchy is just intelligence, particularly mathematical.

    If it was that simple, the boys would also outperform the WOMEN, not just the girls. They don’t.

    This is a terrible argument.

    1. I am not claiming that is all there is to it.
    2. boys/women is a terrible comparison given the relation of age to both absolute intelligence and experience.

    You are better than that, Chanda. Please engage with my points in a more serious way.

    The only factor that is parsimoniously consistent with this hierarchy is just intelligence, particularly mathematical.

    I don’t understand why CanSpeccy, utu, and Santoculto are arguing with me and szopen rather than you. The statement above is the closest thing I have seen (in this thread) to an assertion of the “IQist” argument I keep referring to as a strawman. szopen and I are both arguing for a multifactorial explanation which I think is actually consistent with the underlying beliefs of our “anti-IQists.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Triumph104

    But I’d read a book on the subject about a month earlier ...
     
    So many so-called bright people cannot understand that intelligence primarily reflects what a person has been exposed to. MIT engineering graduates couldn't light a bulb with a wire and battery because no one had ever taught them how. LINK

    African countries don't teach school children in their native languages, instead they kids are expected to simultaneously learn a foreign language and learn how to read, often in primitive conditions. On top of that, they are expected to read and write languages with the most difficult spelling systems - English, French, Portuguese, and sometimes Arabic. "Public" schools charge fees for tuition and uniforms. I don't know of any country in the West that has as many obstacles to learning except for Haiti.

    Was once a member of Mensa, and went to meetings in two different cities. (One meeting per city.) Turns out the members, at least those I met, were primarily impressed by their own “intelligence,” and that was all they wanted to talk about.
     
    Author AJ Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically, said many of the people at the Mensa meeting he attended were unemployed or underemployed.

    The best way to meet intelligent people is through group activities/hobbies. The folks at the local astronomy club will have far more interesting things to talk about than their own IQ.

    So many so-called bright people cannot understand that intelligence primarily reflects what a person has been exposed to.

    I understand what you are getting at (see PS), but have to disagree with your conclusion (primarily?!). There is a difference measurable with an IQ test. I think of intelligence more as the ability to learn and reason quickly and effectively. That underlying ability means even equivalent environments are likely to be handled differently. Then there is the idea that the intelligent people (all people, really) create their own environment to some degree–this is typically given as the reason IQ heritability increases with age.

    Author AJ Jacobs, The Year of Living Biblically, said many of the people at the Mensa meeting he attended were unemployed or underemployed.

    It makes sense to me that Mensa would (unintentionally) select for intelligent people who aren’t getting enough intellectual stimulation in the rest of their lives.

    The best way to meet intelligent people is through group activities/hobbies.

    Agreed. It does help to realize that activities differ in this though, as indicated by your astronomy club example. Some sports are actually quite good in this regard. What works best is finding a group which contains many smart people who share some of your interests.

    P.S. Your MIT engineering example is well chosen. IMO MIT tends to underemphasize (and undervalue) practical skills in favor of theory. Part of the idea is that it is relatively easy for smart people to pick up practical details (which tend to change more over time than theory), but if they are never exposed then we have the problem you describe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    I should apologize or at least explain. I was not saying your comment was silly. I was referring to the whole discussion, which seems to boil down to IQists vs. anti-IQists.

    I don't fit into either group, and it seems to me both specialize in strawman arguments.

    IQ is real, and it is important. Is it therefore the most important thing in the world? Nope.

    Was once a member of Mensa, and went to meetings in two different cities. (One meeting per city.) Turns out the members, at least those I met, were primarily impressed by their own "intelligence," and that was all they wanted to talk about. Possibly there are Mensa groups elsewhere that don't suffer from this.

    To apply I took two proctored tests.

    1. A fairly normal Stanford Binet type. Scored 134. One in 85 people.

    2. A type I'd never heard of before, where the proctor read a long passage on an obscure subject, then I answered a bunch of multiple choice questions. I assume the test is that "more intelligent" people will have higher recall of the obscure material. Scored 164. One in 100,730 people.

    Now, my intelligence didn't go up that much from one test to the next. :)

    What happened was that the "obscure subject" was ancient Greek religion, as opposed to mythology. Priests, cult practices, sacrifices and such. But I'd read a book on the subject about a month earlier and could probably have scored pretty high taking the test cold, without the proctor first reading the passage.

    That's one of the reasons why I think IQ is real but by itself not all that important.

    IQ is real, and it is important. Is it therefore the most important thing in the world? Nope.

    Yes, ”it’s real”.

    What i said, i love this metaphor.

    IQ is a ESTIMATIVE of quantitative levels, quantitative**

    size levels of intelligence. You can have a big intelligence but be a [predominanty] stupid… because what really is intelligence is how great we can use it.

    IQ score pride is quasi like be pride because your big brain…

    The same about drivers.

    Very good drivers who can do a lot of great things BUT are not responsible. Only have the superlativeness, but not the better way to manage it.

    Houston we have a problem!!

    Was once a member of Mensa, and went to meetings in two different cities. (One meeting per city.) Turns out the members, at least those I met, were primarily impressed by their own “intelligence,” and that was all they wanted to talk about. Possibly there are Mensa groups elsewhere that don’t suffer from this.

    IQists, no doubt about it.

    When IQ tests start to measure /estimate creativity and rationality, i will criticize less in this direction because it’s the uber-logical to do. What is a human being without their creativity and rationality, and specially rationality**

    To apply I took two proctored tests.

    1. A fairly normal Stanford Binet type. Scored 134. One in 85 people.

    2. A type I’d never heard of before, where the proctor read a long passage on an obscure subject, then I answered a bunch of multiple choice questions. I assume the test is that “more intelligent” people will have higher recall of the obscure material. Scored 164. One in 100,730 people.

    Now, my intelligence didn’t go up that much from one test to the next.

    Yes, continue please, ;)

    What happened was that the “obscure subject” was ancient Greek religion, as opposed to mythology. Priests, cult practices, sacrifices and such. But I’d read a book on the subject about a month earlier and could probably have scored pretty high taking the test cold, without the proctor first reading the passage.

    That’s one of the reasons why I think IQ is real but by itself not all that important.

    I think every factually correct information and specially about ourselves is important. What is wrong here is this IQistic cult, thanks for Therman study et all, we have today a bunch of people who think they are extremely smart FUNDAMENTALLY because they score higher in IQ tests, they think it’s a ACHIEVEMENT while it’s just the partial and cognitive expression of their intelligence. This people don’t care about intelligence, they care about IQ, period.

    In other words, what they have excessive pride and use it to validate their intelligences is in the true a demonstration of stupidity.

    They believe they are invincibly smarter and one of the fundamental reasons they believe is

    they are far to be that geniuses;

    psychometrics encourage, promote IQism if not we can say that ”both are or become the same”. It’s insane.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Logan
    I should apologize or at least explain. I was not saying your comment was silly. I was referring to the whole discussion, which seems to boil down to IQists vs. anti-IQists.

    I don't fit into either group, and it seems to me both specialize in strawman arguments.

    IQ is real, and it is important. Is it therefore the most important thing in the world? Nope.

    Was once a member of Mensa, and went to meetings in two different cities. (One meeting per city.) Turns out the members, at least those I met, were primarily impressed by their own "intelligence," and that was all they wanted to talk about. Possibly there are Mensa groups elsewhere that don't suffer from this.

    To apply I took two proctored tests.

    1. A fairly normal Stanford Binet type. Scored 134. One in 85 people.

    2. A type I'd never heard of before, where the proctor read a long passage on an obscure subject, then I answered a bunch of multiple choice questions. I assume the test is that "more intelligent" people will have higher recall of the obscure material. Scored 164. One in 100,730 people.

    Now, my intelligence didn't go up that much from one test to the next. :)

    What happened was that the "obscure subject" was ancient Greek religion, as opposed to mythology. Priests, cult practices, sacrifices and such. But I'd read a book on the subject about a month earlier and could probably have scored pretty high taking the test cold, without the proctor first reading the passage.

    That's one of the reasons why I think IQ is real but by itself not all that important.

    I should apologize or at least explain. I was not saying your comment was silly. I was referring to the whole discussion, which seems to boil down to IQists vs. anti-IQists.

    Agree absolutely, we have two type of… sorry, stupid people, at least in this area, fighting one each other to prove not about this science but about themselves, it’s sad. In the end, this type of silly debate is in all spheres. For example the silly debate between ”gender theory” [ light years wrong] and ”binnary or conservative gender theory”. The first say no there such thing gender or that it’s a social construct, but also say that … there are 500 different types of gender self-identification. The second say most people are plain straight heterossexual and the rest is just pathological conditions.

    Well, we have two extremist type of people competing to see who will win this ridiculous competition. And yes, thanks god, we also have moderate people in this debate, and we are, specially, the moderates here in this IQ-intelligence debate.

    I don’t fit into either group, and it seems to me both specialize in strawman arguments.

    Exactly. The first want to prove scientifically that human races differ in intelligence… and i agree with them. The second want to disprove it, but this second group is even worse because they are very incoerent and dishonest, for example, when IQ scores are supposedly increasing thanks to the Flynn miracle, ”people are becoming smarter… and ”diverse’ ”, so those who say ”IQ only measure what IQ measure” change completely their point of views. If IQ would proved that blacks are smarter than whites I NO DOUBT MOST OF THEM will agree that, finally, IQ measure intelligence very well…

    Ideology is when religion invade the science and true filosophy. Expected disaster.

    But bear in mind that there is a ”ideology” that is absolutely right, i call wisdom, and it’s not always recommendable to be moderate, only if the circunstances require.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous White Male
    I think your low IQ on verbal ability is showing through. Perhaps you meant to provide a brilliant riposte, but you failed. Do you consider me an IQist? If so, I can tell you that all of the above have a genetic basis.

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/07/neurotic-people-see-faces-in-things.html

    Does this link tell us you are neurotic?

    I think your incapacity to detect implicit information and verbal abstractions make you fool yourself here and there, and there and here…

    Maybe i think i’m one of many people here who you already call ”low IQ” [lol IQ]

    IQ is a thing, literally, a two or three digit numbers.

    IQ EXPRESS a non-inanimate thing, ”our” intelligence…

    No there such thing ”genetic nature of IQ”

    There is such organic thing GENETIC NATURE OF INTELLIGENCE

    I doubt you’re geneticist to talk about ”genetic nature of” with substance, you just repeat what other people says as a parrot, and i still think you can’t visualize what genetic nature of INTELLIGENCE really is or mean.

    IQ is equivalent to weight size, in numbers.

    IQ is a abstract/numerical representation of something is trully what ”we” can call a organic thing.

    I consider you a stupid and often it’s also mean ”IQist”

    I’m writing in my non-mother tongue, whatever, what’s matter is factual understanding, you fail to develop and intellectual humility [to find your own mistakes to improve your understanding].

    Neurotic people, i don’t how common is, but i believe it’s common among very neurotic people, tend to see faces in objects as well IQists tend to see genes where no there.

    Confuse what is a abstraction and what is a real thing.

    Intelligence [and creativity, and rationality] is:

    organic correlates: brain size, number of neurons and synapses, levels of conectivity between hemispheres, etc…

    ”We” only can understand or conceptualize intelligence via its expression or behavior.

    So intelligence is:

    - capacity to adapt [namely during the challenging/changing environment]
    - creativity
    - reasoning
    -SELF KNOWLEDGE [one of the most underrated}
    - rationality
    – behavioral rationality
    – cognitive rationality

    Firstly must be needed associate behavior/expression with neurobiological correlates and start from here to search for correlated genes.

    One of the fundamental symptoms of IQism is

    all the time change the word intelligence by the ”word” IQ as if both were synonimous…

    what you do all the time, PERIOD.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Another mind-opening essay by Chanda Chisala.

    Africans reaching the top in games (scrabble, checkers etc), sports (quarterbacking, race car driving etc) and other activities (literature, music, oratory etc) which require brain power makes the IQ fundoos look very foolish indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @res
    Thanks. To repeat:

    Can you point me to the data supporting that again, please?

    It's worth mentioning that even for youths the tendency of males to obsessively engage with hobbies matters for how much practice they are getting in the present and recent past.

    To reiterate szopen's original point:

    However I note that acc to the studies on scrabble I read, one have to spent a LOT of time on a single activity (4-5 hours per day, one study claimed). That level of fixation is rather not expected from women.
     
    Are you trying to assert that the male tendency to fixate/obsess will not matter at all in youth Scrabble?

    Just a correction: a WEEK, not a day. “a player have to train every day, 4-5 hours per week” one article said and I have mixed weeks and days. Embarassment.

    However, another study (linked above) claimed that all it matters were the years of experience to explain the scrabble ratings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.