The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Fear and Loathing in Psychology
The loathsome truth about psychology textbooks
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Fear and loathing

I have a secret hope that one day one of my readers will write a psychology textbook, and that intelligence will be mentioned in an up-to-date and accurate manner.

Years ago, when reading a new UK textbook that took an apologetic and partial view of racial differences in intelligence I planned to look at the UK scene, but got distracted by having to learn what was really happening in the field, a task from which I never recovered, because I am still wading through the torrent of new publications.

What is the current situation regarding the coverage of intelligence in US textbooks? Here are two heroic figures, who have waded through this forest of paper to bring us some interesting results. This cannot have been easy work, so what sort of stimulants did they use to maintain their concentration? On observing them, I think they kept going out of a macabre fascination with just how badly intelligence is presented in US textbooks.

Warne and Astle looked at 29 best-selling undergraduate textbooks, which is where psychology students learn about intelligence, because less than 10% of graduate courses offer an intelligence option.

3.3% of textbook space is dedicated to intelligence. Given its influence, this is not very much.

The most common topics start well, with IQ and Spearman’s g, but do not go on to the best validated, evidence-led Cattell-Horn-Carol meta-analytic summary, but a side-stream, speculative triarchic theory from Sternberg; and a highly speculative and non-specific sketch of an idea about multiple intelligences Gardner. The last is a particular puzzle, since it really is a whimsical notion that motor skill is no different from analytical problem solving. All must have prizes.
Commonly, environmental influences are discussed, genetic ones rarely.

Warne textbook common topics

Interesting to compare this list with the Sackett and Snow predictive equation for employment selection, in which the addition of a multiple intelligence test contributes 1% to the final prediction.

Warne and Astle compare the actual contents against Gottfredson’s (2009) common mistakes about intelligence research and find that some errors are particularly frequent, found between a third and a quarter of the time: the idea that intelligence test items are arbitrary, and that other lists would provide an equally arbitrary result; that any variation in scores shows that they could be altered permanently by interventions; that if a skill can be improved it means that skill gaps can be closed; that because people are 99.9% alike genetically it means that important differences between them cannot be caused by genetics.

79% of the textbooks had inaccurate statements, often on the topics of test bias and that intelligence was only important in academic contexts. If we take the broader category of questionable accuracy, then all the textbooks contained questionable statements, mostly about race, environmental influences on intelligence, stereotype threat, and Lewontin’s parable of the seeds (which I think will last for ever).

Here is their paper:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3c4TxciNeJZWEZlcnVlYmMtVEU

Here is their conference presentation:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3c4TxciNeJZWEZlcnVlYmMtVEU

The authors mildly conclude: Our study may provide insight into why popular beliefs about intelligence often do not match expert opinions.

My conclusion is more acerbic: too many writers of psychology textbooks fear intelligence research and loathe what the results imply. They regard it as their democratic duty to twist the results to serve their own, presumably saintly, objectives. I think they have fallen into Noble Cause Corruption, but doubt they feel any shame at respecting their presumptions more highly than the facts.

P.S. The following day, David Lubinski was interviewing Stephen Pinker, and as the topic turned to public perceptions of intelligence Pinker said that he would really like to see how the topic was covered in psychology textbooks, and that someone should investigate it. In a delicious moment, we all pointed at Warne! A good boost for any researcher, on whom I hope fortune will smile.

 
• Category: Ideology, Science • Tags: IQ, Political Correctness, Public Schools 
Hide 317 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Now hol’ up, hol’ up: this guy is saying intelligence researchers are afraid to pursue that line of research, much less publish results, because the current academic climate is a hostile cultural-Marxist hellhole that destroys careers for Badthinking Badwhites?

    Smashing.

  2. hyperbola says:

    “Psychology/psychiatry” has been a non-science perversion from the very beginning.

    The Science of Thought Control

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/21/the-science-of-thought-control/

    Sigmund Freud, Psychoanalysis, and the War on the West

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/24/sigmund-freud-psychoanalysis-and-the-war-on-the-west/

    We should keep in mind how it contributed to the USSR. The sooner it disappears the better.

    Stalin’s Jews

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    • Agree: Sowhat
  3. res says:

    Dr. Thompson, have you blogged about the “Sackett and Snow predictive equation for employment selection”? I did not see anything in a quick search of your posts, and a more general search was not fruitful either.

    Is the access limitation on your Google Drive links above intentional?

  4. We are having http htpps issues which I thought had been resolved.

    Sackett’s presentation here http://www.unz.com/jthompson/can-tests-predict-academic-outcomes

    • Replies: @Trevor_Z
  5. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    79% of the textbooks had inaccurate statements, often on the topics of test bias and that intelligence was only important in academic contexts.

    Only in academic contexts? A few weeks ago I had to help a friend assemble his new closet. He spent an hour looking at the pictures before calling.

    I’d be surprised if top 10 World fencers don’t have above average IQs.

    • Replies: @Patrick Harris
  6. Ads says:

    I am a recent graduate with a BS in psychology, and I didn’t realize just how little I learned about intelligence.

  7. JackOH says:

    “My conclusion is more acerbic: too many writers of psychology textbooks fear intelligence research and loathe what the results imply.”

    Yep. I’ll go with that, as distasteful as it seems. I’ve read similar comments about the revulsion with which ideas in physics were greeted by academics. I informally looked at a handful of undergrad survey course texts a few years back in an area in which I had some good knowledge. The background’s too long, but those texts made bland, authoritative-sounding assertions that likely wouldn’t stand up to sharp questioning by an interested layman.

    Although a non-prof, I’ll grant that reaching a firm conclusion that one finds personally distasteful can be a difficult thing.

    • Replies: @Logan
  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The last is a particular puzzle, since it really is a whimsical notion that motor skill is no different from analytical problem solving.

    My conclusion is more acerbic: too many writers of psychology textbooks fear intelligence research and loathe what the results imply. They regard it as their democratic duty to twist the results to serve their own, presumably saintly, objectives. I think they have fallen into Noble Cause Corruption, but doubt they feel any shame at respecting their presumptions more highly than the facts.

    What if it wasn’t really that simple?

    Every one of the elite has a very easy way to “not feel shame”: tell themselves they are serving the public, the interest of most people.

    Is that surely, thoroughly untrue? It looks like a chicken-or-egg question.

    Let me quote Bernays:

    Undoubtedly the public is becoming aware of the methods which are being used to mold its opinions and habits. If the public is better informed about the processes of its own life, it will be so much the more receptive to reasonable appeals to its own in- terests. No matter how sophisticated, how cynical the public may become about publicity methods, it must respond to the basic appeals, because it will always need food, crave amusement, long for beauty, re- spond to leadership. If the public becomes more intelligent in its com- mercial demands, commercial firms will meet the new standards. If it becomes weary of the old methods used to persuade it to accept a given idea or commodity, its leaders will present their appeals more intelligently.

    and Le bon:

    Crowds are somewhat like the sphinx of ancient fable : it is necessary to arrive at a solution of the problems offered by their psychology or to resign ourselves to being devoured by them.

    I wonder… are these scholars you despise gay fraudsters, or simply people who don’t want to be devoured — by indifference and censorship and social shaming if nothing worse –?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Colleen Pater
  9. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    I’ll add to the Bernays’ quotation:

    if the public becomes able to bear more truth, it will be told more of it.

  10. res says:
    @James Thompson

    That worked. Thanks!

    This was a fun quote (p. 8):

    Deductive referencing is often more error-prone as the writing process “becomes more a matter of defending [viewpoints] than of discovering statements about scientific truth” (Steur & Ham, 2008, p. 163).

    The trend over time is interesting as well:

    Griggs (2014a) analyzed textbook coverage and course syllabi, finding that discussions on intelligence were a smaller percentage of textbook space in the 21st century than the 1980s, dropping from 6% of textbook space to 4%. Previously intelligence was covered predominantly in its own chapter, whereas in 21st century textbooks it was often combined with the language and thought sections of the book.

    The detailed comments about fallacies and inaccurate statements were interesting because they serve as a nice taxonomy of bad arguments commonly encountered. It also makes clear that intro psych textbooks are one of the (the primary?) sources of all of those bad arguments seen in the wild.

    As Warne et al. put it:

    Beyond higher education implications, this study highlights the mismatch between scholarly consensus on intelligence and the beliefs of the general public (e.g., Cronbach, 1975; Freeman, 1923; Gottfredson, 1994; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987). After reading 41 inaccurate statements, 118 questionably accurate statements about intelligence, and 50 logical fallacies about intelligence in introductory psychology textbooks, the reason for this mismatch was obvious to us. We believe that members of the public likely learn some inaccurate information about intelligence in their psychology courses.

    Above you mention “because less than 10% of graduate courses offer an intelligence option.” It looks to me like this comes from “Furthermore, because fewer than 10% of all psychology departments offer a course on intelligence (Stoloff et al., 2010)” on page 35. I downloaded Stoloff 2010 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/00986280903426274 but do not see that data presented. It looks like they gathered the data (see Table 1) but intelligence did not make the “most frequently” cut. Did I just miss it (no mention of intelligence in the Stoloff reference per my search), or can someone point me to the underlying reference for the 10% figure?

    In the “exception that proves the rule” department it is interesting to note that the only one of Gottfredson’s (2009) fallacies summarized in Table 2 which is not present in any of the textbooks studied is:

    9 Biological = genetic
    A biological difference (e.g., brain size, reaction
    time) must be genetically caused.

    Looks like we don’t have to worry about anyone being incorrectly taught to believe in the genetic determinism of IQ ; )

    P.S. Any idea why the OCR in that PDF is so spotty? I tried to cut and paste from the top of page 13 and chunks were missing. Also true (to a lesser extent) in my first quote above.

    • Replies: @Dr. Russell T. Warne
  11. FKA Max says:
    @James Thompson

    Mr. Thompson,

    both links in the article link to the conference presentation, at the moment:

    Here is their paper:

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3c4TxciNeJZWEZlcnVlYmMtVEU

    Here is their conference presentation:

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3c4TxciNeJZWEZlcnVlYmMtVEU

    It is probably supposed to look like this instead:

    Here is their paper:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZOTl3clpiX0JKckk/view?usp=sharing

    Here is their conference presentation:

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3c4TxciNeJZWEZlcnVlYmMtVEU

  12. Ben Frank says:

    Don’t trust any book after (19)30.

  13. speculative triarchic theory from Sternberg; and a highly speculative and non-specific sketch of an idea about multiple intelligences Gardner.

    Metacognition or ”intrapersonal intelligence” [skills] don’t exist* [sorry, my bad gramm]

    Alter-cognition or ”interpersonal intelligence” [skills] don’t exist*

    Musical skills don’t exist*

    Even ”naturalistic intelligence” [sciency-typo] don’t exist*

    ”Practical intelligence” [or skills] don’t exist* Nor ”creative” or ”analyptical”*

    At priori MI just extended ”human’ capabilities for other types than just verbal, mathematical, spatial… what is the problem*

    Most of this psychological theories are different ways to enphasize in different perspectives of the same general construct. Triarchic theory enphasize in very different but very important /broader facets, the capacity to create/to invent, to act in ”intelligent way” and to analyse.

    MI theory has been used even by their own creator as egalitarian propaganda but this don’t invalidate it completely.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  14. The last is a particular puzzle, since it really is a whimsical notion that motor skill is no different from analytical problem solving.

    I don’t understand this part.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  15. ”the idea that intelligence test items are arbitrary”

    All them tend to be in some degree. Maybe here people are conflating ”arbitrary” with ”inequal”.

    IQ-test creators seems think they are perfect judges to define what is intelligence or not.

  16. Well at least some psychology students are getting a good education:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Pat Boyle
  17. Tom Welsh says:

    “79% of the textbooks had inaccurate statements, often on the topics of test bias and that intelligence was only important in academic contexts”.

    Ironically, the last clause is self-refuting.

  18. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    There is no intelligence on planet Earth!

  19. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “A man is honorable in proportion to the personal risks he takes for his opinion—in other words, the amount of downside he is exposed to.”– Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile

  20. Logan says:
    @JackOH

    It’s much worse than your example. New ideas in physics do not challenge the very basis of our consensus worldview regarding what humans are, how we should organize ourselves, what problems in society are capable of being solved, etc.

    Ideas about human capabilities, especially those involving a genetic basis, do.

    However, I would like to note that the idea that humans vary in intellectual horsepower would be a great deal less explosive if all human sub-groups showed identical distribution in all abilities.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @unpc downunder

    Peterson is great. He should run for president. A guy like that – smart and capable of dropping truth-bombs without triggering too many snowflakes out of the conversation – could change the world.

    • Replies: @Logan
  22. @Anonymous

    To be fair, I have a graduate-level education and am absolute rubbish at tasks that require assembling objects.

  23. @Anonymous

    sticking with intelligence. the “crowd” knows the truth. Only a academic can hide full standard deviations from themselves. Anyone who knows average blacks well knows they full well know they are not near as smart as whites and jews and asians no full well they have an intellectual edge on white, and whites no the score as well, so do the other races. (((Left academics))) know it too, as well as that if they ever admit it the entire structure of leftism collapses, all of it not a scrap left and they get that, and they get that if leftism collapses whites will resume hegemony despite the jew asian edge. Because we all know theres some other traits in addition to moderately high IQ that make whites so successful.Which is why jews and asians choose to colonize us rather than build their own nations and to the extent they build their own nations they try to model our but but never quite operates like ours.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  24. One Tribe says:

    Much more interesting than the content of your article, is the motivation to publish such an article, and the subsequent decision by UNZ to publish it.
    Interesting…

  25. Lies told by psychology textbooks are nothing compared to lies told by Hollywood and US media that insist on ‘teens’ than ‘black thugs’.

    Here is fantasy vs reality.

    A bunch of Seattle progs gather to watch HIDDEN FIGURES, a Hollywood fantasy about Magic Negresses, to feel so self-righteous and holier-than-thou, but reality attacks them in the form of black thugs who cause such mayhem that the show will be shut down.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzXFXSQHDjs

    When will Americans discuss PQ and AQ: Physi-Q and Aggression-Q?

    It’s not intelligence that is causing all this racial havoc. It’s the fact that blacks are more muscular and more aggressive. It’s like, if Massuh Truth were built like Emmanuel Lewis, he wouldn’t have kicked all those white balls, won all the races, and humped 1000 white womenfolk.

    Even though blacks cause most harm to whites, white women still have tons of kids with black men because of BDF or Biggus Dic*us Factor. In the following video, a white woman feels aggrieved by death of her son by a ‘teen’. But her son is a mulatto she had with a black man. As the black father isn’t in court, he is obviously roaming around colonizing other white wombs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqSrpXzJBlY&t=163s

  26. Jason Liu says:

    These attitudes go far beyond psychology… academia is a nuthouse that must be brought to heel by the government. Until then, take every study that comes out of western universities with a grain of salt.

  27. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    For the general public, the trouble with psychology is that it appropriates common concepts and redefines them in accordance with what it can measure. The result is that the public is taken for a dangerous ride.

    Thus, when University of Toronto psychology professor, Jordan Peterson, tells his students that if they “don’t buy IQ research” they might as well throw out the rest of psychology because IQ research is the best thing psychology has to offer, he is (a) bullying his students, warning them, in effect, that there is no place for them in psychology unless they buckle under and accept the psychologist’s definition of intelligence, and (b) redefining intelligence as what psychological research says it is.

    And how do psychologists define intelligence? By an overall score on certain paper and pencil tests of verbal, mathematical competence and the spatial interpretation of line diagrams. From these tests they come up with a number that they call an intelligence quotient, and based on their research, they say this score is the best available indication of a person’s life success: it predicts life success better than anything else you can name.

    Well the first thing to note is that intelligence assessed the way psychologists measure it considers only a narrow range of human capabilities. So IQ tests measure something very different from what is commonly understood to be intelligence.

    According to the commonest dictionary definition, intelligence is “the ability to acquire knowledge and skills.” By that definition, the hand to eye coordination of the surgeon, the hand to ear coordination of a violin virtuoso, or the kinesthetic coordination of a gymnast are all forms of intelligence unrecognized by the psychologists, who may dismiss reference to such gifts with a sneer about “prizes for everyone.”

    But playing the violin like Itzak Perlman constitutes what ordinary folk understand as a display of cleverness, talent or genius, and in the common acceptation of the term as well as by the dictionary definition such cleverness equates to intelligence.

    Moreover, the common understanding of intelligence goes far beyond “the ability to acquire knowledge and skills.” It includes, as the Oxford Dictionary defines it, “understanding and sagacity,” or what one might otherwise call judgement. But beyond understanding and sagacity, intelligence is manifest in the display of wit, which is to say humor, imagination, strategic thinking, quickness of thought, none of which skills are in any apparent way evaluated with an IQ test.

    The second thing to note is that when the psychologists say IQ is the best available indication of a person’s life success this is not true. Heck, even IQ itself, when measured at one stage in life predicts IQ at another stage in life only poorly. In this Scottish study the correlation between IQ at age 11 and age 90 was 0.54, meaning that only 29% (i.e., r squared) of the population variation in IQ at age 90 was accounted for by variation at age 11. And if you look at the details of the study as it was reported when the subjects were aged 82, you will see that the poor correlation between 11 and 82 was not due solely to deterioration in intelligence with age since some individuals increased in IQ by several standard deviations between ages 11 to 82.

    When psychologists talk of “life success” they of course mean success in following a career such as their own, and it is true that IQ test results correlate in some degree with academic achievement, although according to Charles Murray, traditional academic tests do as well or better. In fact, one would expect traditional academic tests to do better, at least for students in certain fields such as history or fine art, i.e., subjects that require judgement and imagination as much as raw verbal or numerical reasoning power. Traditional essay exams also allows the expression of gifts in language use that are beyond the purview of an IQ test.

    But in any case, neither IQ tests nor academic performance at one stage in an individual’s life predict academic success at another level with any accuracy. Many bright kids manage to be bottom of the class, Winston Churchill who remained in the fourth form for three years and had difficulty gaining entry to the military college at Sandhurst comes to mind, while many dull drones destined for a career as a tax inspector, orthodontist, or proctologist manage to be top of the class.

    So academic achievment really doesn’t mean a thing. Well actually, reviewing my own experience perhaps it does. Of the only two of my fellow students who received honors from her majesty the Queen, one was absolutely bottom of the class while I, on at least one occasion was top; the other who received a knighthood, gained a lower second class degree while I won the faculty prize. Not fair, is it. But actually Geoff was, and I’m sure still is, a very sound fellow: you know, judgement, moral character, diligence, hard work. Allow me therefore to say here, since I don’t have his email address, well done Sir Geoffrey.

    So the important thing to remember about IQ is that it doesn’t mean what the psychologists in there eternal quest for power wish you to think it means, and it may mean nothing whatever so far as your own success and happiness in life are concerned.

  28. @Santoculto

    Metacognition or ”intrapersonal intelligence” [skills] don’t exist* [sorry, my bad gramm] …

    It isn’t a question of whether there are skills relevant to self-understanding (or the other “intelligences”) but that there’s no evidence presented that they form a factorial unity.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  29. @Santoculto

    I had trouble with that too. “No different” in what respect?

    • Replies: @Dube
  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    That’s why Nassim Taleb says psychology– and social science– is total bullshit. That Jordan Peterson lecture was as laughable as a gender studies class. At least to me, someone who’s studied the hard sciences.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  31. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The second thing to note is that when the psychologists say IQ is the best available indication of a person’s life success this is not true. Heck, even IQ itself, when measured at one stage in life predicts IQ at another stage in life only poorly. In this Scottish study the correlation between IQ at age 11 and age 90 was 0.54, meaning that only 29% (i.e., r squared) of the population variation in IQ at age 90 was accounted for by variation at age 11. And if you look at the details of the study as it was reported when the subjects were aged 82, you will see that the poor correlation between 11 and 82 was not due solely to deterioration in intelligence with age since some individuals increased in IQ by several standard deviations between ages 11 to 82.

    Thanks for providing real data and links. There appear to be differences in the cohorts. Looking more closely (below) we see differing groups
    ABC – Aberdeen Birth Cohort
    LBC – Lothian Birth Cohort (Edinburgh)
    1921 birth cohort originally studied in SMS1932 (Scottish Mental Survey)
    1936 birth cohort originally studied in SMS1947
    and multiple rounds of test administration.

    From the Deary 2013 paper (your link) we see:

    The study participants were members of the Lothian Birth Cohort of 1921 (LBC1921). Most of the cohort had taken part in the Scottish Mental Survey of 1932 (Scottish Council for Research in Education, 1933; Deary et al., 2009), which, on June 1 of that year, administered a validated test of general mental ability (MHT No. 12) to almost all children who had been born in 1921 and were attending school in Scotland. From 1999 to 2001, people living in Edinburgh and the surrounding area of Scotland were invited to take part in a study of cognitive aging. The 550 recruits, who were all born in 1921, formed Wave 1 of the LBC1921. The tracing, recruitment, and
    testing in the first three waves of the LBC1921 study were described in previous reports (Deary, Gow, Pattie, & Starr, 2012; Deary et al., 2004). The present study’s analyses are based on data collected during Wave 4 of the study, which took place during 2011 and 2012. Examinations took place as close to the participants’ 90th birthdays as was possible.

    Contrary to your assertion, the correlation you quoted was from IQ tests at or near age 90. Age related IQ effects are very much in play as an explanation for a reduced correlation.

    Pages 4 and 5 of Deary 2004 contain a great deal of information about the cohorts and methods. It looks like Deary 2000 used ABC1921 tested in 1998 while Deary 2004 used LBC1921 tested from 9/1999 to 7/2001 (about ages 78 to 80). This testing included both Moray House Testing and Raven data. The LBC1921 sample (N = 485) was about 5x the size of the ABC1921 sample which is important.

    A study at age 77 (Deary 2000, ABC1921) found a higher correlation (but for a smaller sample size, n=97): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222530120_The_Stability_of_Individual_Differences_in_Mental_Ability_from_Childhood_to_Old_Age_Follow-up_of_the_1932_Scottish_Mental_Survey

    The correlation between Moray House Test scores at age 11 and age 77 was 0.63, which adjusted to 0.73 when corrected for attenuation of ability range within the re-tested sample.

    The Deary 2004 study of LBC1921 found a still higher correlation (0.66) but it came out the same after adjustment. Note the additional comments:

    The disattenuated value of .73 in the LBC1921 is the same as the disattenuated value in the ABC1921 (Deary et al., 2000). These disattenuated coefficients are still underestimates of the true stability of Moray House Test scores from age 11 to about age 80. They are based on the assumption that the reliable variance in Moray House Test scores is 1.0. Instead, a better estimate of the reliable variance would be the short-term test–retest correlation of the Moray House Test scores. Assuming a short-term test–retest correlation of about .9, the true stability of the Moray House Test scores from age 11 to age 80 might be as high as .8.

    If I understand correctly, LBC1921 in Deary 2004 is the data set that was used in the scatterplot and described as age “about 80.” The scatterplot you linked is an interesting enhancement over the Deary 2004 version (I wish the original had a regression line and std dev lines). Some thoughts:
    - No one had an IQ over 120 at age ~80.
    - There are clearly more results below the y=x diagonal than above it (with some being dramatic). Another sign age related degeneration is likely even in the ~80 year old cohort.
    - It would be interesting to follow-up with participants significantly above the y=x diagonal. Were they late developers? Can we learn something about beneficial environments for increasing IQ over a full lifetime from them?

    I’ll also note that your correlation was a selective quote from the abstract of Deary 2013. Here is a more complete version (your omission emphasized):

    The correlation of Moray House Test scores between age 11 and age 90 was .54 (.67 when corrected for range restriction).

    Does anyone have any methodological comments on the appropriateness of the range restriction correction? Is there any way we (or perhaps just someone like Dr. Thompson) could look at the IQ ranges for each full sample and see how that changed over time and how representative the later groups were?

    I’ll leave it to others to comment on the non-data driven parts of your comment. You definitely had a good education in rhetoric and possess the IQ to use it well. Still not sure about your agenda, but you certainly dislike the idea of IQ.

    P.S. Here is another study linked to the SMS1932: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12825469

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  32. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    That Jordan Peterson lecture was as laughable as a gender studies class.

    Yes, having heard Peterson’s attack on his colleagues in the Humanities, I was shocked by both the content of his lecture and the style in which it was delivered. The humanities are bullshit, according to Peterson, but his lecture is not! The only explanation I can think of is that in his war with the forces of political correctness both at the University of Toronto, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Federal Government of Canada, Peterson feels unable to challenge his peers in psychology. Very odd. Very disappointing.

  33. @Colleen Pater

    China is surely the elephant sitting on your theory. They are building their nation far faster than any Western country and certainly not mideling themselves on America although they do share a taste for caoital punishnent which most of the West has abandoned.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Colleen Pater
  34. @Ads

    “I am a recent graduate with a BS in psychology, and I didn’t realize just how little I learned about intelligence.”

    Yeah, but there’s a reason it’s called a BS degree, so just fake it like all the others.

  35. @Stephen R. Diamond

    I don’t understood what you said. Are you saying self knowledge is not important?

    Yes, about that second/major idea of MI seems Gardner was/is wrong.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  36. What does psychology and sociology have to say about this?

    http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/maryland/baltimore/drone-footage-baltimore/

    … ‘Race is just a social construct’.

    Funny, but when race is ‘constructed as black’, it sure is destructive.

    So, maybe blacks ought to be ‘constructed as white’, and they will stop messing up cities.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Thus, when University of Toronto psychology professor, Jordan Peterson, tells his students that if they “don’t buy IQ research” they might as well throw out the rest of psychology because IQ research is the best thing psychology has to offer, he is (a) bullying his students, warning them, in effect, that there is no place for them in psychology unless they buckle under and accept the psychologist’s definition of intelligence, and (b) redefining intelligence as what psychological research says it is.

    That’s simply not true. He’s saying that IQ research is one of the best defined psychological branches and that the statistical methods used were instantiated for all other hypotheses. You can’t reject 100 years of IQ research which provided fairly precise results and accept “conscientiousness” branch. Not when methodology is even more stringent for the first one.

    No sane student will be intimidated by this or feel like he’s being bullied. That’s preposterous. Peterson has the right to tell them to approach this scientifically. You don’t get to choose what you’re gonna believe in according to your feelings. You look at the data and the underlying methodology.

    And no, he’s not redefining intelligence. Psychological research has defined it through decades of hard work. If you don’t like it, that’s fine.

  38. @Wizard of Oz

    But they copied industrial revolution from western, every step.

  39. @Priss Factor

    Humanities become “bulshit” because some-ones reprogrammed it to attack only-whites.

    I learn that geography is to do war. Philosophy can be used to do cultural war.

  40. @Santoculto

    The study of abilities, at least as typically undertaken, involves finding the underlying unifying constructs that account for performance. For example, a broad spatio-visual factor is found. The finding is more than saying we have spatio-visual skills that are important. Rather, having one spatio-visual skill predicts having another and predicts it better than skills that aren’t spatio-visual, such as verbal comprehension skills (which similarly predict each other).

    Two spatio-visual measures, to complete the example, are 1) How fast you can mentally rotate a figure mentally to determine if its identical with an object in another position 2) How complex a block design puzzle you can solve. These have a relatively high inter-correlation.

    Now, what would be two metacognitive skills? No question they exist and are important, but what might they be. Perhaps one skill is the knowledge of one’s own emotional state. Perhaps another is the ability to face truths about one’s own character. To claim these are parts of a metacognitive ability, they should intercorrelate, and this needs to be shown rather than assumed. They can’t even be assumed to be as broad as the “ability to know one’s emotional state.” This might turn out to vary depending on emotion or kind of situation. Tigtness of intercorrelation is essentially what is meant by factorial unity.

    “Intelligence” denotes the broadest of abilities. According to Cattell and Horn, there are exactly two broad intelligence abilities or factors: fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence. According to Carroll, there is one factor, g.

    I regard the question as unsettled. But having met both Horn and Carroll, I can tell you that Horn was the more intelligent of the two.

  41. @CanSpeccy

    IQ is a better predictor of life success than “poverty.”

    Choke on it.

    But playing the violin like Itzak Perlman constitutes what ordinary folk understand as a display of cleverness, talent or genius, and in the common acceptation of the term as well as by the dictionary definition such cleverness equates to intelligence.

    By this definition my guitarist father is a genius. In reality, he’s kinda dumb, even if not a complete moron.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  42. @CanSpeccy

    For the general public, the trouble with psychology is that it appropriates common concepts and redefines them in accordance with what it can measure.

    Is your objection that psychology redefines common terms or that it uses a bad criterion (measurability) for redefining them?

    The first is common scientific practice. You wouldn’t complain about physics redefining ‘water’ as H2O. The question is whether the redefinition gets to the essence – and whether there is any essence to the concept of intelligence. (Maybe it’s a family resemblance term rather than a natural kind.)

    • Replies: @helena
  43. @Stephen R. Diamond

    IQ is mostly by semantic memory and not by autobiographical memory. Fluid and chrystallized is not only to retrieve semantic informations but autobiographical too.

    I mark the word “speculative” in one of my first comments here, why??

    Some things seems so obvious that expect a study to prove this exist look like mad.

    Obviously because few or maybe none have studied intrapersonal skills we right now no have (scientific) evidence it exist but seems too obvious to deny its existence simply because it still was not demonstrated via scientific method. Studied intrapersonal skill in deep and metric ways.

    I tried to help in this department with three intelectualities: intellectual independence, honesty and humility. Both three is extremely important to self knowledge in my view.

    We need to be more intellectually independent to engage in intellectual tasks and to be less influenced by other opinions in indiscriminated/uncontrolled ways. We need to be more intellectually honest and this mean, don’t try to lie for themselves, to search for the facts and also our own facts. We need to be intellectually humble to accept our own limitations and mistakes. You see it’s the gradual process of introspection. Firstly we reinforce our own borders from collectivity. Secondly we stop to lie for ourselves in uncontrolled ways and really try to understand the origins of our intentions, motivations and potentials. Thirdly we stop to always “rationalize” our own fails. I thought intellectual honesty, humility and independence are known psychological constructs.

    Other expression of self knowledge can be found on talent department. What differentiate a very bad singer who think s/he is great and real great/talented singer?? Self knowledge at least about its particular talent.

    All high IQ idiots or clever sillies have in common a single one trait: lack of self knowledge, they tend to be below in this aspect.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  44. @Stephen R. Diamond

    But having met both Horn and Carroll, I can tell you that Horn was the more intelligent of the two.

    How could you tell?

    If you knew nothing about them and you watched Michael Jordan take on Magic Johnson, it’s possible that on some given day Magic might beat him, even if experts all but unanimously agree Jordan was better. So in this case it would be wrong to conclude Magic was better on the basis of this one game, and I’d have grave doubts about anyone voicing a confident opinion on such a basis.

  45. @Santoculto

    don’t try to lie for …. ourselves…

  46. @Stephen R. Diamond

    “Intelligence” denotes the broadest of abilities. According to Cattell and Horn, there are exactly two broad intelligence abilities or factors: fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence. According to Carroll, there is one factor, g.”

    All entities have a factor g, a factor that unite each part in one whole and make this unity possible. Obviously there is a factor G and obviously this factor G is indeed the sum of all this parts or facets. Most intelligence concepts based on one major or subdivisions of this facets. Just like to do a Origami.

  47. @silviosilver

    IQ is mostly by semantic memory and not by autobiographical memory. Fluid and chrystallized is not only to retrieve semantic informations but autobiographical too.

    Tests of autobiographical (episodic) memory aren’t included in computing IQ, but they are included in tests of memory. Is that your point?

    The reason is that episodic memory is low g. There’s some evidence it has some relationship to forms of spatial ability. (The 3-D kind Sailer has commented on.)

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  48. @Stephen R. Diamond

    I’m not SilvioSilver,

    but they are included in tests of memory

    How it’s can be possible*

    The reason is that episodic memory is low g.

    hum.

    There’s some evidence it has some relationship to forms of spatial ability. (The 3-D kind Sailer has commented on.)

    How it’s can be possible* How autobiographical facts [and some false memories there and here] can correlates with spatial ability**

    Specially if women tend to be better in this stuff than men*

    Maybe, it’s better correlated with ”only-verbal” skills, i mean, ”real” autobiographical memory: personal memories AND facts [where self knowledge is significantly important].

  49. @Santoculto

    Physiological basis of g? Still waiting…

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  50. @RaceRealist88

    The ”physiologist” here is you.

    Factor G of Ferris-wheel…

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  51. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @silviosilver

    By this definition my guitarist father is a genius. In reality, he’s kinda dumb, even if not a complete moron.

    If he plays the guitar as well as Perlman plays the violin, most people would say his acquired musical skill is of genius level, and as we’ve noted, acquired skill is defined by the dictionary as intelligence.

    But as for your father being a moron, I take it you mean in verbal reasoning or math or some such thing, not in as a performing artist, which nicely refutes the psychologist’s claim that intelligence is a unitary phenomenon.

  52. @CanSpeccy

    I think your anti IQ passion warps your judgment as much as the opposite seems to create holes in the work e.g. of Lynn and Vanhenen. Though you later show that you know IQ tests are merely measures you say that “psychologists define intelligence” by a set of scores on pencil and paper tests etc.

    Surely those tests (which there is perhaps a tendency to overrate because people can learn to improve their test taking more than is probably assumed by the designers) measure very important ingredients of what makes up intelligence as at least reasonably intelligent people normally assess it. Speed (with working or short term memory but includinf the speed of access to a wider store of well enough arranged memories) is probably the key element. Not the temperamental willingness to blurt out what pops into the head but speed of logical connection. No experienced (and intelligent) teacher of small children is going to be surprised very often by the relative IQ scores or their correlation with later performance. (Equally they are unlikely to be wholly surprised by the failures of kids with high IQs to make good use of their fast and retentive brains). It”s as much a matter of averages as connecting say height to basketball prowess.

  53. @Santoculto

    No substantial reply.. as usual.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  54. What do most psychology books say about sexual relationships and family?

    My Psych 101 textbook from 1985 said children need a father figure and mother figure, the yin and yang thing of balance of masculinity and femininity in upbringing.

    My guess is that the homo lobby pressured psychology department to do away with that idea. After all, homos tell us that ‘two daddies’ or ‘two mommies’ are just as legit as parents.
    It’s funny how the Progs admire a movie like HANDMAID’S TALE where children made by young women are raised by older women as if the kids are theirs. That is condemned as ‘evil’, but homos snatching away children produced by real sexuality and raising them as if they’re products of homo ‘sex’ is considered ‘more evolved’. In the end, principles be damned. It all comes down to catering to the Power. Since homos got the power, they can bend the rules to serve themselves.
    It’s like Zionists got the power and can pressure government to clamp down on BDS. And Iran and Russia are hit with sanctions but Israel(that still occupies West Bank) and Saudis(main sponsors of terrorism) get sweet deals and much aid.

    Another subject in psychology is personality or personality traits. It used to be narcissism was seen as a disorder even if a relatively mild one. Everyone is narcissistic to some degree, but some people are really into themselves.
    But in our celebrity-crazy world, is narcissism seen as a disorder? After Obama and Trump and all those celebrities who are into me-me-me, has narcissism been made mainstream and normal?

    Also, narcissism, as I recall, used to mean beautiful people obsessed with their own allure. So, narcissism was an elitist tendency for the rare beautiful people in the world. It made no sense for ugly people or fat freaks to be narcissistic. True narcissism, good or bad, belongs to the select few with the looks. It’s like mental snobbery or smarcissism belongs only to the geniuses who are a minority in the world. It’d be dumb for non-geniuses to pretend they are Einsteins.

    But it seems as though narcissism went from elitism to a kind of a universal ‘right’. There was a time when it would have been laughable for someone like Lena Dunham to present herself a sex symbol. But there she is… acting like she’s some hot stuff.

    Also in the past, if someone didn’t have the looks or glamour thing — and most people don’t have it –, they were expected to find meaning through goodness, morality, values, and sense of duty.
    Now, even the ugliest pig or gross freak thinks he or she is some hot stuff. It’s part of the culture. It’s ‘boring’ and ‘lame’ to just try to be a good decent person along modest humanist lines. No, everyone has to be ‘cool’, ‘rad’, ‘badass’, or ‘hot’.
    And freakdom-as-new-cool is supposed to be the great equalizer. So, if you’re fat, gross, and/or ugly, just be a freak(especially a gender-fluid one), and you’re suddenly ‘cool’ and ‘hot’ by rules of New Normal.
    I think this 50 genders stuff has appeal not so much as ideology but promise of narcissism.
    Fact is, by conventional standards, most people are not beautiful like Alain Delon or Jeanne Moreau. But if they enter into freakdom and pretend to be a different ‘gender’–among 50, 100, or 500–, maybe one is ‘beautiful’ according to those alternative criteria.
    So, dye your hair pink, get some tattoos, pierce your nose and tongue, and claim that you’re neither man or woman or gay or lesbian but some meta-trans-uber-unter-post-sexual who answers to ‘they’(than ‘he’ or ‘she’), and maybe you’re ‘beautiful’ by those newly constructed ‘creative’ standards.

    The attempted universalization of college education convinced a lot of dummies that they are ‘creative geniuses’, and the universalization of narcissism(once the domain of select few born with lucky genes) has filled the minds of even the ugliest and grossest people that they are ‘hot stuff’.

    Take a look at this clown:

    https://www.facebook.com/1252769878167443/videos/1264204653690632/?hc_ref=ARR7JcDt50-r0rv16sM7zYjnmAow32IPtzwmtwowETkauBNoaHqIw9Pkjs3Omci9w6w

  55. @Santoculto

    All entities have a factor g

    Exactly, this is just what it means for something to be an entity. But many constructs do not! We want to know whether a construct is an entity. If there’s a g, then intelligence is an entity (or acts like one), which is why g theorists get accused of “reification.”

    Most constructs don’t have a common factor. Wittgenstein’s famous example is the concept “game,” which covers overlapping entities without a true common factor. Another way of saying this is that not all concepts have necessary and sufficient criteria for their application.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  56. @CanSpeccy

    I think you’re right. If his father is a genius guitarist and a near-moron, it would indeed disprove the unitary theory of intelligence.

    But don’t confuse the unitary theory of cognitive ability with the unitary theory of intelligence. There are cognitive abilities besides intelligence (or besides crystallized and fluid intelligence). One of them that’s relevant to musical talent is general auditory ability or g sub a.

    The idea of intelligence, both in common usage and in (what I consider) the best psychology, is that it is the broadest (or constituted by the two broadest) general abilities. A first approximation: a certain level of intelligence is necessary for most cognitive performance.

    What is this “intelligence”? I would agree with Cattell that it is the ability to educe abstract relationships. (Contrary to the Wizard from Oz, I don’t think its basically a matter of speed of operation: cognitive speed or g sub s emerges as a factor separate from either fluid or crystallized intelligence. The more intelligent, the more abstract your thinking can be.)

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  57. JackOH says:
    @Logan

    Logan, I agree with you. I just didn’t want to press my comment too strongly.

    I concede the academy has a legitimate gatekeeping function that’s in tension with other forces, such as budgets. I want to believe our universities do a better job of resolving those tensions in favor of truth than universities in North Korea. After a decade’s close observation of my local state university, I’m just not sure of that.

    FWIW-there are blogs by academic insiders, mostly faculty, who describe in excruciating detail and with great persuasiveness how they’re being used as bloody furniture by trustees, alumni, local bigwigs and varied stakeholders, big-money sports. Just Google ‘em. Break out the Scotch, too. Those blogs can be depressing reading.

  58. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Constructs would be part of entities?? (in politics I like to call the parts of entities = identities)

    But if a construct is not a entity it’s not just part of its real identity?

    (identity = domain)

    I thought it’s just too logic that at the same time we have skills to deal with other people we also will have skills to deal with ourselves and that it’s likely this skills will be within a specific domain just like the cognitive specialties as verbal, math and spatial. Everything in the end is pattern recognition AND to factual understanding. Of course to understand ourselves we also need verbal skills (fundamental for all human tasks), proportionality sense (compare ourselves with other people), logic (to rationality = establish universally correct criteria). In the end self knowledge is also the end of recessive subjectivity of human being self-identity. Excessive *

  59. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Cattell definition is antropocentric and possibly wrong in partial ways because if human intelligence don’t come from nowhere so we need into account how nonhuman abilities become human. Because strong selective pressures behavior is synonymous of intelligence in “natural world”, so all nonhuman species must be intelligent in some very crucial ways for themselves, it’s not negotiable. Almost everything human beings do namely those who no have very disordered mind is minimally definable as smart even when we fail to be or to act in smart ways our fundamental desire is always to reach intelligence in every moment of our lives. But human self domestication and domestication in natural world (among ants for example??) tend to increase cognitive skills over general skills, psychological and cognitive. So individuals start to be defined as pieces of given collectivity they are and not fundamentally who they are even because after final domestication the self-sense become too weak to be taken into account by own individual.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  60. Dube says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Good question. Or, in what respect are they the same? Can we get an answer?

  61. @Santoculto

    Cattell definition is antropocentric and possibly wrong in partial ways because if human intelligence don’t come from nowhere so we need into account how nonhuman abilities become human.

    What is abstract for a dog may be very concrete for a human. Animal intelligence may rest on abstractive ability. At least, I don’t know otherwise.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  62. @CanSpeccy

    I’m not playing your idiotic IQ-denying games. I’ve never once heard anyone in real life use the word intelligent to refer to an acquired physical skill. “Dat Shaq yo, he so damn intelligent!” Lol.

  63. @silviosilver

    If you knew nothing about them and you watched Michael Jordan take on Magic Johnson, it’s possible that on some given day Magic might beat him, even if experts all but unanimously agree Jordan was better

    But notice that the same could be said about the results of an IQ test: you can have a bad day; and of course there’s measurement error.

    Why is the criterion for basketball ability the opinion of experts, whereas an objective test is the criterion for intelligence? (I think the opinion of an expert may be better than one test with regard to intelligence as well. Why not?)

    [Apologies to you and santoculto for the earlier confusion.]

    • Replies: @res
  64. helena says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    In answer to your question, I think it is more a case of psychology constructing a mock-up of what society is. Reducing the process to either/or, misses the point that together, labels and measures, create a false reality. Like the Truman Show, or like any religion or institutional culture. Creating ‘models’ of or for society is how culture works. Culture must surely be psychological? (Anyway, I’m not picking on you, I just read your comment and had that thought).

  65. polistra says:

    Fear by the writers may be part of it, but you have to remember that textbooks are meant to help prepare students for a career. Most of the careers for a “social” “science” grad will be in the school system, where the same fear is even stronger. The only application for IQ testing in a school is to maximize the number of students who count as some kind of “learning disabled” so the school can maximize its federal funding. Thus the textbooks focus on that end of the IQ scale for good practical reasons.

  66. But notice that the same could be said about the results of an IQ test: you can have a bad day; and of course there’s measurement error.

    Or a good day. Which is why it’s a good to take the test a few times, if you want a more accurate picture of your true level.

    For most practical purposes, this isn’t necessary. Someone who scores 90 on a bad day is most unlikely to score 130 on a good day, so whether his true score is 95 or 100 or 105 is of no serious significance.

    Why is the criterion for basketball ability the opinion of experts, whereas an objective test is the criterion for intelligence? (I think the opinion of an expert may be better than one test with regard to intelligence as well. Why not?)

    Basketball ability can be measured to an extent. If you’re trying to decide who the better player is between two closely matched players, then expert consensus is your best bet.

    The same probably holds for deciding between two individuals closely matched in intelligence – although you’d probably want to have more than one conversation with them before forming an opinion.

  67. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    as we’ve noted, acquired skill is defined by the dictionary as intelligence.

    Haha.

    And when you say “we”, you mean a group of South-east Asian performers who didn’t do well on IQ testing but can sure shoot a mean ping pong ball out of their snatch?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  68. @Stephen R. Diamond

    Seems what is sporadic for some of them is to the rule for us, at least the basic of abstraction.

  69. @Anonymous

    There are some types of ”acquired skills”. There are those that are recreational, sports for example. There are those that are essential, for example, capacity to detect micro-t0-macro-dangers, the most important instinct all living beings have. There are those that are more technical.

    Instinct to survive seems the most ”heritable” OR ”inheritable” OR ”innate-than-acquired”, this is the first function to pattern recognition.

    Technical ones is in the ”second’ place here while ”to play a violin” or ”play basketball”, you/we need higher amount of human artificialities. Even without a vocabulary, our impetus to communicate still will exist.

    Most artificial, less inheritable, less expressable-regardless-the-environment, more environmental-dependent.

    When some people here say ”solve problem” they seems want to say ”solve mathematical problem in the school”, while they rarely say or enphasise on the most important ones, for example, the ruins of western civilizations and why, whom…

    In domesticated scenarios the order of priorities tend to be completely inverted where micro-problems become the most important while macro-problems are at the best ”secondarized” or worse, ”polemized”, becoming a non-go-thought.

    Even it’s remarkable any sport-achievements, bear in mind that it’s recreational at the best. So, two geniuses, one on the sports, other on the science, it’s evident on the science will be more remarkable in universal criteria of importance or relevance, because science is not just recreational, EVEN recreation or entertaining is also vital for our mental health.

  70. @Wizard of Oz

    china is standing on the shoulders of the west and still cant see over our head. They have figured out multiculturalism is a really really stupid idea and enforce a Han hegemony and have almost zero immigration granting zero citizenship and citizenship is ethnic and entails no right to voice because they also figured out how incredibly stupid it is to give voice to the incredibly stupid. Despite all that they are a potemkin economy and its not close to clear they will emerge from that particularly if the world continues to turn inward, and they have no energy and are at the end of the energy distribution chain. If we ever do anything about espionage they will have litttle technology and if the wold decides trade imbalance suck and robots are cheaper than chinks they have nothing to trade having lost the ability to assemble our ideas and tech

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Wizard of Oz
  71. @Colleen Pater

    And chinese regular people has been treated as ”cattle”, via extremely large working days, repeating step by step almost everything westerners did, including, polluting environment, exhausting their natural resources, treat workers as bad ways possible, destroying many of them beautiful ancient archicteture. I would not doubt if soon they start to open their borders for foreign workers.

  72. res says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Why is the criterion for basketball ability the opinion of experts, whereas an objective test is the criterion for intelligence? (I think the opinion of an expert may be better than one test with regard to intelligence as well. Why not?)

    Well, at least part of the reason is probably the non-existence of an objective test for basketball ability that captures anywhere near as much of the basketball ability variance as an IQ test captures of the intelligence variance. Another part is that perhaps the most important characteristic is obvious–height. Then there is wingspan: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-wingspan-325749

    Here is a discussion of athletic testing at the NBA combine: http://www.draftexpress.com/article/2017-nba-combine-athletic-testing-analysis-5930/
    I think the logical counterpart of IQ testing in basketball is the use of Moneyball-style analytics. For example: https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/8qyx4a/how-analytics-can-help-identify-nba-draft-steals-and-busts

    It is interesting that the NBA does not take that kind of testing as seriously as the NFL does. Then there is the NFL using the IQ-like Wonderlic test…

    The test vs. expert question also gets into questions of objectivity vs. subjectivity and the benefits of having a common scale.

  73. @Ads

    Same here. If my memory serves, intelligence was briefly touched on in my introductory psychology course, my child development course, and my psychometrics course. It was when I got to grad school (in educational psychology) that I learned how important it was. But it was when my university (Utah Valley University) started planning a new psychology major and I did research on the undergraduate curriculum that I knew that my situation wasn’t unique. So, I did this study to learn how serious the problem was. Turns out, it’s VERY serious. :-(

  74. @res

    Stoloff et al. (2010) doesn’t directly mention classes on intelligence, but their list of courses is EVERY course that is taught in at least 10% of American universities. We know intelligence courses exist. (I teach one.) So, they’re likely taught by less than 10% of universities because they’re not on Stoloff’s list. Other articles I cite also do not list intelligence as being taught by a significant number of university psychology programs.

    • Replies: @res
  75. res says:
    @Dr. Russell T. Warne

    Thanks, Dr. Warne! It is great to have the author posting here. I think your paper is a valuable attempt to administer a corrective to the psychology curriculum.

    I apologize if I am being dense, but I am still not seeing how that conclusion follows from Stoloff et al. (2010). It’s not that I don’t trust your conclusion, it is just that I like having a good direct citation for use in the future.

    In their paper I see the following (pp. 6-7) which is close to your statement above, but not exactly the same unless I am misreading:

    Our research team entered every course with a psychology prefix listed in each school’s undergraduate catalog into our database. For each course, we listed (a) standardized course number and title, (b) actual course number and title, (c) lecture and laboratory credit hours, (d) course category, (e) whether the course explicitly focused on methodology, and whether the course was (f) required and (g) had prerequisites.
    We encountered tremendous variation in course titling. The 374 schools we examined offered 14,580 courses. Using the course title and description information available in catalogs, we classified 11,762 courses into one of 101 standard course titles. An additional 2,818 courses remained as “topics” courses at the end of this process, but we were able to classify 1,387 of these courses into topical categories. Using this system, we were able to account for 90% of the courses offered.

    So if I read that correctly we have 90% of undergraduate psychology courses (subtle difference from your comment) placed into (a minimum of, it’s not clear to me if they added more topics for the last 1,387) 101 standard course titles.

    Then in Table 1 (p. 9) we see a list of “Most Frequently Offered Courses” categorized by “Course/Area Title” and ordered by the percentage of universities offering a course in that area in 2005.

    The issue is that Table 1 only contains 30 titles and stops at 29% of universities. So we have at least 71 titles offered at between 29% and 0% of universities. Given that, I don’t see how we can make any inferences about which titles are offered at less than 10% of universities. Presumably that information is available, but I don’t see it published (I assumed you had gotten it privately).

    Can you help clarify this for me?

    Thanks again!

  76. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I ended up watching this lecture of Jordan Peterson. He is a ruthless indoctrinator. A sign of true believer. I felt sorry for his students because they were so defenseless to his quasi intellectual bullying.

    Clearly this was not an example of good teaching. He used his students as a proxy of his enemies and opponents and cameras were rolling, the opponents who do not want to talk to him. Is he capable of giving a balanced lecture or is he too far gone.

    His knock out below the belt punch was when he asked the students whether they would want to have a child with 65 IQ as a prove that they actually believe in IQ as intelligence and thus the case is closed.

  77. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Still not sure about your agenda, but you certainly dislike the idea of IQ.

    I reject the validity of the term “intelligence quotient” as applied to the results of so-called IQ tests. Use of the term constitutes misrepresentation intended to enhance the influence and incomes of psychologists. It’s use constitutes fraud.

    “IQ” tests do not measure intelligence as that term is generally understood. There is no component of the test that assesses judgement, there is no component of the test that assesses wisdom or sagacity, there is no component of the test that assesses imagination, creativity, aesthetic sense, wit or humor, and there is no component of the test that assesses skills that are of a non-intellectual kind, although all of these facets of the functioning human central nervous system are aspects of what is understood by the term intelligence. As a result, “IQ” tests cannot provide a comprehensive measure of human potential, as a limitless number of examples could be assembled to show. Inevitably, therefore, “IQ” tests don’t predict academic performance better than traditional measures of past academic performance.

    There are multiple potential harms in “IQ” testing, which include: (1) complacency, entitlement and idleness in those of high “IQ”; (2) discrimination against those of low “IQ” who may nevertheless be of high intelligence in one or more of the numerous fields of intelligence not evaluated by “IQ” tests; (3) a Fascistic desire for a society stratified according to a false measure of intelligence, without reference to the knowledge, diligence, or moral standing of the individual.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @RaceRealist88
    , @AP
  78. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    I agree.

    I wonder, is the video supposed to convince the viewer of the validity of “IQ” testing, or was it put online by a subversive intent on revealing the indoctrination tactics of the psychology professoriate. If the latter, I suppose the video will soon disappear from view.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @utu
  79. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @utu

    bullying

    Another snowflake who didn’t understand. Most of psychological research relies on statistically measuring results. As it turns out, the IQ research field offers some of the best defined results and statistical methodologies in psychology. So you can’t reject it because you don’t like the conclusions – that’s just silly in academia (and you shouldn’t be attending university). If you’re rejecting it on the basis of bad methodology then you’re rejecting 95% of other psychological research which is both less defined and based on inferior methodologies (in which case you shouldn’t be in that class).

    Psychology is not a “hard” science but it does have some semi-hard (I know) branches. Psychology students who don’t like those are really looking for a Triggering Studies diploma or a nearest trans-gender toilet where they can talk about their feelings undisturbed by reality.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  80. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I doubt about the subversive intent. Rather it is his hubris.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  81. @CanSpeccy

    Agree partially with your comment but totally that IQ tests really don’t access all human intelligence facets and surprise the most important of all. Because we pray for more semantic precision, ;), so the most appropriate term would be CQ (cognition quotient).

    IQ is for common ADHD diagnosis. Only-for-school-and-job. (appropriated).

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @CanSpeccy
  82. @Santoculto

    And my view this possible or logically expected change of this term don’t invalidate where IQ has been good/very good to predict.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  83. @CanSpeccy

    I’m more interested in ‘genes for’ IQ. How many of the so-called IQ genes gave been replicated? No many, to the best of my knowledge… The gene known to ‘give’ the most points only gives .3 points.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  84. @Santoculto

    “or logically”

    You don’t know basic logic. You can’t answer simple premises. Why are you talking about logic?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  85. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    so the most appropriate term would be CQ (cognition quotient).

    That’s as misleading as IQ.

    Cognition, noun
    the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.

    or, according to M-W:

    conscious mental activities : the activities of thinking, understanding, learning, and remembering.

    There’s no evidence that “IQ” test measures much, if any, of these things. That’s why people of high IQ can be arrogant ignoramuses, or crafty and devious dunderheads: like James VI of Scotland (James I of England), a highly educated man, described as “the wisest fool in Christendom,” and by Sir Walter Scott as:

    exceedingly like an old gander, running about and cackling all manner of nonsense.

    Which seems a fitting description of an IQ-ist.

    No, the IQ-ists need to be truthful if they wish to be taken seriously. Their tests measure certain aptitudes that may be requisite, though surely not sufficient, in those intending to study the higher math or some other demanding academic subjects, but which are, except at the extremes, but poor indicators of life success, and certainly no better than old-fashioned academic examinations.

    Most importantly, the IQ-ist have to acknowledge their past misrepresentation of what they measure and admit that they are able to assess only very limited components of what intelligent people take to comprise intelligence, i.e., all of the the adaptive functions of the human CNS, namely all of the faculties and capabilities understood, in common parlance and in accordance with dictionary definitions, to constitute intelligence.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  86. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    One more thing. When watching his lecture I realized that making the argument that IQ is The One, i.e., all other measures are highly correlated with IQ and thus are superfluous and thus there is one and only one intelligence is crucial to “them” and this brought me back to our past discussions on g and factorization, etc. Peterson alludes to factorization and basically says that whatever you do you end up with just one factor which essentially is IQ. In our discussions I did not make a point which occurred to me much later when I mentioned it somewhere on one of Sailer’s threads. My argument goes as follow: A battery of tests yield factors. The first two g-factor and s-factor are the strongest and g dominates s, so s can be neglected. This is the argument they make. But why does g dominate s? BTW, s according to some suppose to be responsible for visual imagination at least in test batteries they deal with. You see, it is possible to select a battery of tests in such a way that you end up with the two largest factors that are of similar strengths, so no longer one of the two can be neglected. So the fact that they usually get one factor that is dominant is to some degree a happenstance. Because if any battery of tests that yield one dominant g is appended with additional tests that favor s instead of g you can increase s/g ratio up to the point when s≈g in strength. You can accomplish it also by breaking up some tests into subtests along the delineation between questions that favor s and these that favor g and by swelling up question that favor s. Sailer’s rebut was that Binet tests were constructed before Spearman came up with g. This rebut may only work in favor of argument that Spearman did not tweak his tests in order of getting his result that there is one g but it does not exclude a happenstance. Binet did not get his tests from God on Mt. Sinai or from Angel Moroni in Palmyra, NY.

    Anyway I am bringing it up just to show that their argument that there is only one factor that matters is essentially false because it is not a general argument, because it does not have to be true. It is only so because of the test they end up putting together into a battery of tests from which they derive their factors. Basically they engage in various forms of circular thinking which might not be seen at first glance because of various obfuscations they applied over many years which often also depended on various reifications.

    There was another argument Peterson made that you can’t reject those early psyshometricians (Spearman…) because of tools (mathematical tools) they developed which are used all over science, psychology, psychometrics. It is true that their contribution to statistics were significant. It is also true that Newton’s contribution to math and physics were great nevertheless we managed to reject his mumbo jumbo on numerology, Kabbalah, Bible parsing and who knows what else. It is interesting that Royal Academy had wisdom to burry his writings for centuries to avoid compromising their national treasure. If the bloody foreigners from Continent did get hold of the cache of Newton mumbo jumbo writings history of science and mathematics certainly would have looked a bit different.

  87. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Rather it is his hubris.

    Hubris arising, perhaps, from the high “IQ” personality. The personality of someone able to lap up whatever is caste before them in school and university, and regurgitate it at will and with high accuracy, and without giving it a thought, or possessing more than the most superficial understanding of what they know.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  88. @Colleen Pater

    How do you know these things? In Australia we are indeed conscious of China make huge strides to bring down the cost of energy sources alternative to hydrocarbons and huge efforts to quell pollution. I hope you are wrong because I am counting on thete being still millions of very smart Chinese (and Indians) who will be educated and invent the ever more productive future for us.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  89. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Peterson alludes to factorization and basically says that whatever you do you end up with just one factor which essentially is IQ.

    Yes, “g eats up all the variation”!

    Except that they don’t have a test for imagination, wit, aesthetic sensibility, or the many other manifestations of central nervous system function that in ordinary speech are understood to be aspects of intelligence.

    That fact confirms, I believe, your statistical argument, the conclusion of which, stated in plain language, is that “IQ” tests measure only what is illuminated by a single street lamp.

  90. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Another snowflake who didn’t understand.

    LOL.

    Anyone who refuses to allow an IQ-ist to define with precision their mental horse-power and hence their value to society in a Fascistically rigid and authoritarian hierarchy is to be dismissed as having an insufficient IQ to understand how wise and intelligent the IQ-ists really are.

    IQ research field offers some of the best defined results and statistical methodologies in psychology.

    No one’s questioning the results or the statistical methods (assuming a method is merely a simple-minded person’s way of saying what a psychometrician calls a methodology). It’s the dishonest representation of what is measured and what the data mean, that’s being challenged.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  91. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    What you’ve described there is the opposite of high IQ person. If you had eyes to see you’d know that most intelligent persons (high IQ) question everything and forge their own path.

  92. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88

    The gene known to ‘give’ the most points only gives .3 points.

    Good news that the IQ-ists have a way to go before they can produce ideal test-tube citizens for the coming IQ-ocracy.

    And I see here it is stated that:

    Extensive genome-wide scans have failed to find a single gene for intelligence; instead, environment and maternal effects may account for most, if not all correlation among relatives, while identical twins diverge genetically and epigenetically throughout life

    Thing is, intelligence is likely much affected by culture, class and many other environmental variables.

    I suspect the real challenge the West faces is the degeneration of culture, and with it the intelligence of the people. Already the people of the West have accepted a genocidal population policy, with native reproduction well below the replacement rate combined with mass replacement immigration. How intelligent is that?

    Maybe shutting down the university would be a good beginning if we wish to restore our intelligence to something compatible with societal survival.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  93. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    I am counting on there being still millions of very smart Chinese (and Indians) who will be educated and invent the ever more productive future for us.

    Pretty certainly your hope will be disappointed. Very Smart Asians will invent an even more productive future for themselves, and in disposing of the West, the colonizations and unequal treaties of the past will not be forgotten.

  94. @RaceRealist88

    ..

    Even to troll other people you are this…

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  95. @CanSpeccy

    So cognition is just another term for intelligence?? What is the number of terms that basically is the same thing than intelligence??

    I always thought cognitive/cognition as complementary aspect of psychological/psychology and how many people have described intelligence, as cognitive skills, and applied this concept as “IQ”.

    “Acquiring knowledge” here can be translated as “acquiring facts” and most part of the time seems people want to say “semantic/impersonal facts”. So based on this way people have applied the concept of cognition may we can conclude that IQ is essentially a cognition/cognitive tests.

    Learning verbal skills: IQ measure how superficially good you are about it: vocabulary size, verbal analogies. So I thought IQ tests indeed measure superficial acquired learning, namely the most important ones, those almost healthy human beings tend to born, the capacity to acquire vocabulary, if language acquisition already is quasi-hardware.

    IQ measure memory, thinking and understanding. I thought you know this. But it’s based on superficial and static ways. I mean, they don’t analyze and compare your capacity to use your intelligence, basically the behavior of intelligence, in theoretical and practical ways, in real world scenarios and not only in real world–school-job scenarios.

    I don’t if this concepts of cognition are based on etiology of this term. In the end of day the way people apply this concept and the second itself you provided show that cognition is basically the use of intelligence to solve impersonal problems, just like our machine-side.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @CanSpeccy
  96. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    what is measured and what the data mean, that’s being challenged.

    Yes. A century of “challenge” from people like you and yet IQ testing has only gained ground all over the world in terms of who becomes a university student, policeman, soldier or spy.

    Here’s another Peterson’s lecture (trigger warning):

    Jordan Peterson – IQ and The Job Market
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  97. @Santoculto

    What you said doesn’t make sense… As usual. You know I’m right. Admit it, you can’t answer simple premises. You don’t know basic logic.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  98. @CanSpeccy

    Here is citation for .3 IQ points.

    After adjusting the estimated effect sizes of the SNPs (each R2 ∼ 0.0006) for the winner’s curse, we estimate each as R2 ∼ 0.0002 (SI Appendix), or in terms of coefficient magnitude, each additional reference allele for each SNP is associated with an ∼0.02 SD increase in cognitive performance [or 0.3 points on the typical intelligence quotient (IQ) scale].

    http://www.pnas.org/content/111/38/13790.full

  99. @RaceRealist88

    “Here a citation”

    As ALWAYS ^_~

    What is the “physiological g” Personal??

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  100. @Santoculto

    Cognition etymology and not etiology.

    Yes what I said.

    Maybe its a industrial revolution prevalent mentality: intelligence, worker does.

  101. @Santoculto

    “Never cite things! Pull things out of nowhere, ‘philosophize’ on things without knowing basic logic!”

    You tell me since you’re talking about it.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @RaceRealist88
  102. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Here’s another Peterson’s lecture (trigger warning):

    You mean crap warning from an anonymous IQ-ist who engages in personalities and sneers, rather than, in um, intelligent, debate.

    • Replies: @res
  103. @RaceRealist88

    Basic knowledge I guarantee…

    So I’m right??

    I mean, are you incapable to think by yourself and always need using quotes and citations??

    I’m expecting a physiologuer explaining for us what is the physiological g…

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @RaceRealist88
  104. @Santoculto

    And personal I want examples of my nonsensities or noncognitivities here, ;)

  105. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88

    Thanks for the link. Here’s the money quote concerning the snips related to cognitive performance:

    Knowing the three significant SNPs is not useful for predicting any particular individual’s cognitive performance because the effect sizes are far too small

    I ‘m surprised they couldn’t find anything more significant. Since phenotype depends on both environment and genotype, one might expect a substantial genetic effect.

    However, if the brain at birth is largely a blank slate, then education/culture/other environmental factors would indeed account for the vast majority of variation in intellectual capacity. In that case, IQ-ism will lose much credibility. It would not alter the fact that some are more intelligent than others, but it would mean that if we want to maintain a high civilization we’ll have to clean up our culture, including the quality of what passes for education and publicly funded scholarship, rather than worrying about the IQ of the millions we are so unintelligently inviting to replace us here in the West.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  106. @RaceRealist88

    What are you talking about? You said something about logic. You always talk about philosophy. Yet you don’t know basic logic and you can’t address simple premises, so why talk about logic and philosophy if you don’t literally know the bare basics of philosophy—logic?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  107. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    So cognition is just another term for intelligence?

    Not according to the dictionary definitions I gave.

    Cognition is a mental activity. Intelligence is a measure of the capacity for mental activity, or more generally the capacity of the central nervous system to support intellectual activity or skill-related performance.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  108. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    who engages in personalities and sneers, rather than, in um, intelligent, debate.

    Come on CanSpeccy. If that is what you care about there are a lot better targets than the Anonymous who is conversing with you. The problem is they are “on your side” (i.e. anti-IQ-ist, by whatever definition is currently in play for “IQ-ist”) so apparently immune from that criticism.

    As far as intelligent debate, it is interesting that I make a long substantive comment 32 and you choose to single out the least relevant portion for reply. Are you going to own up to your comment 28 mistake about “And if you look at the details of the study as it was reported when the subjects were aged 82″ at some point? Surely setting the record straight is part of a good intelligent debate?

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  109. @CanSpeccy

    Intelligence is a measure??

    Do you could reply other parts of my comment? If you want.

  110. @RaceRealist88

    You answer yourself, ;)

    Why do you like to be masochized?

    The guy who have 88 (possibly a nazi symbol) on your nickname, that is RaceRealist, all the time is quoting or citing and NEVER developing or elaborating your own thoughts (it’s not only important, it’s FUNDAMENTAL). It’s easy I take some citations and quotes and say “this no make sense to me”. Right now you take a very abstracted study and and always you just quote, citate and say your personal training opinion. I’m not inventing what you always to do regardless the place on the web you are.

    The guy who have a blog where its entry-picture show a prognatic chin black woman (look like monk..?? It’s was your intention???) and a DISTORTED bell curve, a optical illusion for sure. It’s the same guy who SAY things like “honour culture is causal to black violence”, say and NEVER explain or develop…. The same guy who said “nazi experiments was correct OR ethics is problematic in science”. C’mmon Guido.

  111. Trevor_Z says:
    @James Thompson

    Seconding the request for a reference on this, I just watched the presentation and, unless I missed it, multiple intelligences were not mentioned.

  112. @Santoculto

    “I mean, are you incapable to think by yourself and always need using quotes and citations??”

    …………….

    I made a claim. Citations follow claims. It goes like this:

    “claim” (citation)

    You don’t seem to understand why quotes and citations are used. You say that I’m “incapable to think by myself”, yet you’re clueless as to how discussions go down, you talk about things you don’t know and when challenged to choose premises and say why you disagree with them, along with providing citations for a rebuttal, you don’t say anything and, as evidenced by the last comment thread, it was full of idiotic character attacks, especially your last reply which was redacted because it was full of nonsense.

    My claim is that physiologists don’t study g. And if they did they wouldn’t put it in rank order. Let’s say g is physiological. Would it make sense for g to be ranked by physiologists in an order when no other human physiological trait is? No it wouldn’t. Psychologists need to stay in their lane.

    I have a textbook by Kenneth Saladin on anatomy and physiology. The g factor isn’t brought up once. If it’s physiological, then why is it not mentioned in my textbook? Weird… Almost as if the “g is physiological canard” comes from psychologists and not from physiologists. Well psychology is going to die soon and be reached by neuroscience (if it hasn’t already happened).

    BMR has a heritability between .4 and .8, the same as IQ. Average BMR for men and women is between 1500 and 2100 kcal. Is a higher or lower value ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than the other?

    Now think about the g factor. If physiologists were to study g, could you see the g factor as the only trait that physiologists would rank? Why don’t we rank immunocompetence or any other physiological variable? Would the g factor, if it were physiological and if physiologists studied it, be ranked on a linear scale like psychologists do? Would it be the only physiological variable ranked on a linear scale?

    Now do you see why it’s stupid to assert that the g factor is physiological?

    All my own words. No quotes. No citations. Learn how to debate and why quotes and citations are provided.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  113. @Santoculto

    And NaziRealist,

    (he’s anti Semite too)

    Tell us what is physiological g, I’m curious and as you are physiologist…

    Ah, and my illogical pseudo philosophical nonsenses… required examples and refutations.

  114. @Santoculto

    Blah blah blah. You literally said nothing to what I wrote. Ad hominem attacks, your speciality. Try to muster a serious reply sans ad hominem and character attacks.

    Can’t discredit what I write? Then to discredit my character. Never fails for liberals like yourself.

    =^)

  115. @Santoculto

    “It’s easy I take some citations and quotes and say “this no make sense to me”. Right now you take a very abstracted study and and always you just quote, citate and say your personal training opinion. I’m not inventing what you always to do regardless the place on the web you are.”

    Me: training in what I talk about (in regards to nutrition, anatomy and physiology). You: nothing at all. How did I take. I made a claim. I provided the quote and reference. What is so hard to understand about that?

    ” It’s the same guy who SAY things like “honour culture is causal to black violence”, say and NEVER explain or develop”

    …. You must have low g if you don’t grasp this by now.

    Choose a premise or conclusion. If not then don’t respond.

    Argument 1:
    P1: Environmental factors raise testosterone
    P2: If environmental factors raise testosterone levels, then people who are in worse environments will have higher levels of testosterone than people who are not in that type of environment.
    P3: People who are in those types of environments have elevated testosterone levels due to their experience and surroundings.
    C: Therefore, people in certain types of environments experience a rise in testosterone levels—that are permanent—if they are in those environments.

    Argument 2:
    P1: If blacks with less than a high school education have higher levels of testosterone then blacks with some college, then the difference in testosterone between the two groups must come down to the environment.
    P2: Black with less than a high school education have higher levels of testosterone than blacks with some college.
    C: Therefore, the cause for higher testosterone levels in blacks with less than high school is due to their environment—the honor culture that they find themselves in.

    Can you say what you disagree with, why, and provide a citation? If not then don’t respond.

    You don’t understand genes, nor logic, nor anything you talk about so why do you talk about it? Why can’t you address premises and provide a citation for your claims? Strange…

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
  116. @RaceRealist88

    No. I will not fail again in your perfidious game.

    PLEASE dude

    Stop to talk with me, do it, AGAIN, it’s the seventh or eighth time I tell you to stop, just stop because I no have nothing to talk with you, and I know the reciprocity is true, so. Get out. You have other commenters here. Bonapetite NAZI88guido.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  117. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Are you going to own up to your comment 28 mistake about “And if you look at the details of the study as it was reported when the subjects were aged 82″ at some point?

    Details, details, my dear boy. Nothing of importance. Frankly, I hadn’t gone through your lengthy statement with a fine toothe comb, but if the links I provided demonstrate that in some way I erred in description of what had actually been reported, I thank you for correction, inconsequential though it seems to have been.

    But I will take another look when I have some time and see if I need make any further revision to my statement.

    • Replies: @res
  118. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88

    The idea of the brain as a blank slate which acquires knowledge and skills (i.e., intelligence) almost entirely as the result of experience is compelling.

    There must be some kind of BIOS chip, incorporating the basic reflexes plus some programming to get one started with language. But beyond that, intelligence seems to emerge entirely as the result of social interaction, interaction with the physical environment, books, schooling, TV, etc.

    In that case we can think of everyone starting with the same basic greyware, or mushware, comprising 80 billion or so neurons plus a few trillion interconnecting dendrites, which becomes programmed during the course of life. Then it would follow that the most intelligent are those with the best programming.

    It is true that the brain is more or less modular, and there could be genetic differences in the way neurons are parceled out among the modules. Moreover, there could be reassignment of neurons among functions. Nevertheless, it seems to make perfectly good sense, as a hypothesis, that intelligence is virtually all a matter of programming, just as is the case with the functionality of a computer.

    If that were the case, there might be a genetic component due to the properties of the neurons. It might be that some people learn faster or better due to better neurons as genetically determined. Then variation in physiological factors, might be important.

    Perhaps physiology is where the IQ-ists should be pursuing the holy grail of g.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  119. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    there is no component of the test that assesses wisdom or sagacity, there is no component of the test that assesses imagination, creativity, aesthetic sense, wit or humor, and there is no component of the test that assesses skills that are of a non-intellectual kind

    These things are much harder to directly assess on such measures. But – do you think that they are uncorrelated with that which is directly measured? For example, do you think that someone who is well above average in terms of wit, would have an IQ in the 80s (assuming no particular injuries) ?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  120. @Santoculto

    Ad hominem/character attack. All you can do… Cannot address arguments… You’re hilarious.

  121. @RaceRealist88

    My last

    Similar people tend to accumulates in similar environments. So when this people change to other environment it’s likely they will continue to show the same patterns. Seems hormones varies during life time. But this variation is inherited/”heritable” too. Everyone have a avg hormonal sensitivity and a personal variation that tend to be related with racial/phenotypical group you belong.

    Blacks tend to have higher hormonal sensitivity namely men and during the apex of this sensitivity many them tend to become over-reactive, prone to commit crimes, not just poor blacks but people/usually men with this profile. Voila: honor culture. Maybe some circumstantial or environment triggers can increase what some or many them already born with. Criminal people tend to be precocious in the expression of their sinister tendencies. Yes partially speaking circumstantial environments usually have some secondary but important role on any behavior BUT we are own of our own attitudes, imperfectly speaking, because we still are very subconsciously instinctive but we already have at least some window to try to control at least our primary, not all of us.

    Pace.

    Ciao.

    (nothing you say was arguments. Arguments is to explain personal opinions of something/the matter. To say “black violence is CAUSED by environment is a personal opinion of this stuff and not why you think like that. You don’t even… )

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @RaceRealist88
  122. @Santoculto

    Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.

    Why honor culture don’t affect all lower income blacks?? Hum?

  123. @utu

    In our discussions I did not make a point which occurred to me much later when I mentioned it somewhere on one of Sailer’s threads. My argument goes as follow: A battery of tests yield factors. The first two g-factor and s-factor are the strongest and g dominates s, so s can be neglected. This is the argument they make. But why does g dominate s?

    Most g theorists would take the argument to the third factor stratum. You have the three factors. Is there a single factor common to them? I agree that taking the first factor (that is the factor explaining the most variance) to be g would be a bad practice unless (perhaps) the tests were first selected for high g.

    The third stratum is the place for rife speculation. At the second order, we have an array of factors using a broad definition of cognitive ability. We have two intelligence factors as well as other “lesser” general factors, such as speed, retrieval fluency, and general memory storage. Then we have domain abilities such as general visualization and general auditory ability.

    If I understand your point, it concerns why we call the two intelligence factors “intelligence.” The short answer is that they are broadly applicable. You question whether this is an objective fact. What is broadly applicable, you say, depends on the sample of tasks. I think you have a point that calling these two factors (more neutrally, fluid reasoning and general knowledge) “intelligence” involves a value judgment. As such, it’s not part of science. But high fluid and/or crystallized intelligence does correspond to what we commonly call intelligence. For one thing, these are the prerequisites for “genius,” although this too is a value judgment.

    • Replies: @utu
  124. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Comment 105:

    who engages in personalities and sneers, rather than, in um, intelligent, debate.

    Comment 120:

    Details, details, my dear boy. Nothing of importance. Frankly, I hadn’t gone through your lengthy statement with a fine toothe comb

    Nuff said.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  125. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    do you think that someone who is well above average in terms of wit, would have an IQ in the 80s (assuming no particular injuries) ?

    That’s an interesting question that in general terms I think is open to a positive answer.

    Consider Mark Twain. Everyone will surely agree that he was highly intelligent, for not only did he make millions laugh, but he wrote the greatest novel in the American language. But does that mean he had a high IQ? Well quite likely his IQ, had it been determined, would have registered well above the average, but was his IQ so much above the average as was his literary genius? Probably not since he made disastrous investments indicating thereby a lack of shrewdness that would likely have been reflected in an IQ test score.

    Savant abilities, musical, mathematical, and artistic, provide even more compelling evidence, although I am unaware of a Savant humorist. I did however, meet a fellow with advanced frontal lobe degeneration who was extremely funny, though his memory was completely gone, and he died shortly after our meeting, which was at a dinner party hosted by judge who didn’t get the jokes — which made them all the funnier. But there was an example of someone probably too far gone to even attempt an IQ test, who was cracking jokes that went over the head of a presumably high IQ judge.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    , @AP
  126. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    LOL, I award you some extra IQ points for your diligent analysis.

    I really didn’t mean to slight you, but since I am probably at least twice your age, I feel I am entitled (a) not to jump at your command, and (b) to call you, with the kindliest intent, “dear boy.”

    • Replies: @res
  127. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    But then physiological variables affect all mental processes. Brain function depends on over eighty neurotransmitters, for each of which there is a synthetic pathway, a secretory process, a complex mode of action and a process of reuptake or breakdown. Every step in each of these processes is enzyme dependent and the gene for every enzyme likely has multiple alleles. Therefore, the ways that processes in the brain occur must be subject to a large number of genetic factors.

    So although programming, i.e., environment, must be critical to the development of intelligence, genes must also have an important role, even if the critical genes have not been identified. But because of the complexity of the brain, both biochemically and structurally, one would not expect all or even most of the genetic effects on cognitive capacity to be across-the-board, but rather impacting different systems in different ways. The implication is that genetics will result in a spectrum of cognitive capacities that are independently variable within certain limits.

  128. @CanSpeccy

    ”environment, must be critical to the development of intelligence”

    DEVELOPMENT, literally speaking, OR ”reach”*

    Do you think we are DEVELOPED by parents and teachers*
    as products*

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @RaceRealist88
  129. @CanSpeccy

    but was his IQ so much above the average as was his literary genius? Probably not since he made disastrous investments indicating thereby a lack of shrewdness that would likely have been reflected in an IQ test score.

    What standard IQ subtest do you reckon measures (or even correlates much with) financial shrewdness?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @Santoculto
  130. @CanSpeccy

    The implication is that genetics will result in a spectrum of cognitive capacities that are independently variable within certain limits.

    Yes, that’s in accord with analysis of performance as well. But are some more central? Consider athletic performance. The first factor (not a general factor, but the factor accounting for more of the variance than the others) is often interpreted as physical strength. How is this despite there being numerous distinct genetic influences? The answer is that there’s a common causal pathway roughly represented by muscular bulk.

    I think the best guess (which is supported by some brain imaging studies) is that the sheer number of effective neurons in certain higher brain centers in the frontal and parietal lobes is the physiological basis for differences in (fluid) intelligence.

  131. @CanSpeccy

    In that case, IQ-ism will lose much credibility.

    So we can therefore happily ignore the evidence that IQ is the single best available predictor of life success. That’s so cool!

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  132. utu says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Most g theorists would take the argument to the third factor stratum. You have the three factors. Is there a single factor common to them?

    Clearly you do not understand. By definition factor analysis or principal component anaysis seeks orthogonal factors. This means that there is no common factor among the tree because they are orthogonal. This is a definition of orthogonality. In the second step of factor analysis a rotation is performed . If the rotation is orthogonal the three factors remain orthogonal, however sometimes the so-called oblique rotation is performed which destroys the orthogonality. Only then you can say there is some common factor among the three resultants of the rotation but nobody searches for the common factor at this stage and actually rather hides its existence because it is oblique in more than one meaning.

    If I understand your point, it concerns why we call the two intelligence factors “intelligence.”

    No. I was trying to explain, but apparently failed, that batteries of tests usually used are constructed in such a way so they yield one dominant factor just as Spearman and Jensen wished and this fact is used as rhetorical device (for example by Jordan Peterson) to drive the point that IQ or g is the only intelligence that matters because all the other factors are weak and thus negligible. But I argued that one can construct a battery of tests differently, so the two factors will be obtained of approximately equal strength and then one can no longer say that there is only one single intelligence and the rhetorical force of the argument of singularity of g is lost. I did not get to what the factors g and s might be called and what their interpretation might be. This is outside of my argument and interest. In parallel to Spearman there were other researchers like Thurstone (if my memory serves me right) who advocated that intelligence is not uniaxial as Spearman envisioned and thus other factors cannot be neglected. My argument is more general and stronger than Thurston’s. I claim that this is all arbitrary because I can construct tests and subtests and the covariance matrix in different ways that will produce results that will make Thurston happy or Spearman happy. So the argument by Jordan Peterson that “g eats up all the variation” is only local, for particular matrices used, not a general argument. Also Thurston’s argument that say g is x time stronger than s is also local argument not a general one because one can construct a battery of tests where g will y time stronger than s where y≠x. I guess it might be appropriate to quote G.B. Shaw at this point: “They, Spearman and Jensen are barbarians, they think that their customs of their tribe and island are the laws of nature.”

  133. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    Not sure that I understand the question, but deliberate parental influence must often be significant. However, there is a multitude of other environmental influences that govern the programming of the individual. A child, for example, learns the basics of Newtonian dynamics by direct experience of the world. He will not likely be able to state the laws of motion but he understands them as is evident from his successful navigation and manipulation of his physical environment.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  134. @utu

    His knock out below the belt punch was when he asked the students whether they would want to have a child with 65 IQ as a prove that they actually believe in IQ as intelligence and thus the case is closed.

    If you don’t believe that IQ is a measure of intelligence, then you should be completely indifferent to having a child with 65 IQ, so his point is indeed a good one.

    I would have a lot more respect for (or at least compassion towards) IQ-deniers if they simply forthrightly admitted that they’re disturbed by the implications of IQ-realism (at least as they perceive them), for I have no doubt that that is the root of all their obfuscation.

  135. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Stephen, if you had not guessed it, I know almost nothing about IQ tests. But I assume that basic numeracy, and the ability to calculate odds, is helpful in making investment decisions, and that IQ tests include components that might be indicative of such skills.

    In Twain’s case, I think he dealt in one important matter directly with the principal — someone developing a typesetting system, so I suppose that character assessment might have been important. If I recall correctly, Twain was repeatedly misled as to the progress that had been made and the time required to achieve commercialization. That might not have occurred had he been better able to read the character of the man he was dealing with. However, there is, presumably, no IQ sub-test that would measure an aptitude for reading character, although that is a gift that some are widely believed to possess.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Anonymous
  136. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Consider athletic performance. The first factor (not a general factor, but the factor accounting for more of the variance than the others) is often interpreted as physical strength.

    Although it doesn’t really advance the argument, I have to say that in my view that is an absolutely lousy example. In my early teens I was invincible among those with whom I competed at races of 3000 meters or more, but that was due to not to strength, I was extremely slightly built, but I had (a) a beautiful running motion, and (b) the physiology that underlies stamina. [As for (a), I assume it results chiefly from skeletal structure. It is definitely not learned. I realized how good my running style probably was when my daughter took up running, which she does most beautifully —unlike most people one sees on the street running or jogging, who are just shaking themselves horribly, and who should be advised by their doctor to take up cycling or swimming instead.]

    But in addition to skeletal characteristics and stamina, is coordination, which is the key to success in most sports, including throwing and jumping athletic events. In my youth I was sufficiently well coordinated to get over the high hurdles smoothly and efficiently and although not a sprinter I competed in a schools national championship against David Hemery, who went to the US on, I assume, a sports scholarship. He joined the US Olympic team and won the 400 m hurdles event at the 1968 games. Hemery had excellent style, but in his case, strength, the strength of a sprinter, was also essential to his success.

    I think the best guess (which is supported by some brain imaging studies) is that the sheer number of effective neurons in certain higher brain centers in the frontal and parietal lobes is the physiological basis for differences in (fluid) intelligence.

    That could be, although it sounds rather as though you are drawing an analogy between the frontal lobe and a CPU, whereas, it seems likely that large parts of the brain are involved in processing verbal data. I once spent and idle couple of minutes opening the SOED at random pages, sticking my finger on the page at a random place and then deciding whether I knew the meaning of the word I had landed on. I was surprised to find that I had a reasonable idea of the meaning something like three-quarters of the words. Since there are 600,000 words in the dictionary, that suggests a large vocabulary, for each member of which I have associations with, in many cases, many past experiences of the use of the particular word. That kind of processing has got to use a lot of neurons. Surely more than in the frontal lobe. In fact, I thought it was established that language use involves large parts of the brain.

    What is modular, I thought, is numerical processing, which would explain why SAT math and SAT verbal scores are often poorly correlated.

  137. @Stephen R. Diamond

    We hear about legends, for example how smart von Neumann was (smart as an alien! he was awake we were asleep!) but you look at the results – here is a guy (von Neumann) who basically at the age of 8 could multiply and divide 8 digit numbers the way a smart kid can multiply 2 digit numbers, and we know he did well in life, but we have no way of knowing if what he did with his gifts was commensurate to the head start that specific part of his genetic makeup – the part that made him think of 8 digit numbers as just so many baseball cards that he had already collected – gave him. (Don’t read the rest of the comment if you do not like paragraph chiasmus rhetoric – I am doing it for a reason, but I understand if you don’t like it). (I’ve already made my main point so you won’t be missing much). OK, maybe the whole 8 digit juggling shtick was true and maybe it was not, but it is extremely likely that von Neumann was gifted at a few loci on the old DNA strands with a one in a billion non-trivial number equivalent of the (trivial for purposes of discovering new things) exact eidetic memory (I speak from experience here, in a very minor way – I can imitate, 50 years later, the exact tone of voice of dozens and dozens of sitcom comedians, voice-over artists, sportscasters, and basically everybody who ever said something I laughed at or wondered at in real life… without ever having heard them again even once in the last 5 decades …. for example, last year I saw for the first time since 1966 a Kookla Fran and Ollie sketch and while watching it – during the pregnant pause before the last phrase – I said, 10 seconds ahead of time, exactly what one of the puppets had said in the exact intonation.(50 years minus 10 seconds before) … that is a trivial skill unless developed – the way a great musician develops phrases and changes and touches that he has heard and remembers in new ways. …Well what new way is there to present an updated Kookla Fran and Olly sketch????) so many people are gifted with in non-pure-mathematical fields. In any event, my point is that is possible that a person who was not otherwise dull of perception and dull at creativeness, given one half of von Neumann’s one in 5 billion – at a minimum – genetic gift for remembering and being able to recall the equivalent of 20 or 30 human lifetimes of average mental calculations in an instant – would have been not simply productive at the highest level as von Neumann was, but would have been so far beyond his contemporaries that we would only be catching up now (as in the relevant fields of math Ramanujan is being kept up with, or so I have been told). So maybe von Neumann had that one little patch of absolutely extraordinarily well positioned loci in his DNA and was otherwise an average 10th grade math teacher or Big 6 accountant , not that there is anything wrong with either of those things. (If you think this comment wasted your time but you are interested in von Neumann, there is no really good biography that I am aware of but Steve Hsu, on his blog, has a series of about 20 fascinating entries on why von Neumann, as a thinker, was what he was – just google for one, and then click on the von Neumann tag for the others) (the Kookla sketch involved one of the puppets expressing over and over again a desire that the puppeteer, the Platonic ideal, by the way, of a perfect elementary school teacher or kind and friendly young woman of the day, not leave the house after she had said she was going out, and included a list of reasons they went through as to why she should not leave the house at that moment (it does not matter for what, to shop, to go to a party, to bring soup to an invalid) – the list given petered out, and the adorable puppet said – a phrase I forgot for 50 years but in the moments before I heard it again remembered as if were at most a day ago *** because I’ll miss you ***. Many of us have memories like that; sentimental but accurate parameters with which to begin when considering the physiology of understanding.

    • Replies: @middle aged vet . . .
  138. @middle aged vet . . .

    Any exaggerations in the previous comment were for entertainment purposes only. And yes, I know that “loci” refers to positions on chromosomes, not to the the actual chemical content at those positions. “Loci” is one of those words that are going to be misused a lot in the near future: well, I used it correctly. (And if I am not the first to put Neumann and loci and juggling in the same sentence in the entire recorded history of the internet, well, then I must be at least close to the first).

  139. @Santoculto

    “Similar people tend to accumulates in similar environments. So when this people change to other environment it’s likely they will continue to show the same patterns. Seems hormones varies during life time. But this variation is inherited/”heritable” too. Everyone have a avg hormonal sensitivity and a personal variation that tend to be related with racial/phenotypical group you belong.”

    Hormones do vary. What kind of hormones cause black violence? Id love to hear which ones do so. See, you’re stepping way outside your lane here talking about hormones. Sure every *individual* has different hormone sensitivity, no two bodies are alike, all bodies are physiologically and anatomically different.

    Anyway I’ve covered all those things in regards to possibilities for black violence here.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/18/ena-theory-testosterone-crime/

    “Blacks tend to have higher hormonal sensitivity namely men and during the apex of this sensitivity many them tend to become over-reactive, prone to commit crimes, not just poor blacks but people/usually men with this profile. ”

    What kind of hormones? You know there is no/extremely low difference in testosterone between races right? Even then, testosterone doesn’t cause Aggression nor violence.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/10/testosterone-and-aggressive-behavior/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/18/why-testosterone-does-not-cause-crime/

    I understand this. You do not.

    “Voila: honor culture. Maybe some circumstantial or environment triggers can increase what some or many them already born with. Criminal people tend to be precocious in the expression of their sinister tendencies. Yes partially speaking circumstantial environments usually have some secondary but important role on any behavior BUT we are own of our own attitudes, imperfectly speaking, because we still are very subconsciously instinctive but we already have at least some window to try to control at least our primary, not all of us.”

    Lol. We act due to environmental triggers. Man you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    “nothing you say was arguments. Arguments is to explain personal opinions of something/the matter. To say “black violence is CAUSED by environment is a personal opinion of this stuff and not why you think like that. You don’t even…”

    You didn’t address my arguments. You now must concede since you can’t pick a premise or conclusion and state why you disagree with it. You’re showing your “intelligence” here Santo. Which is not too high because you can’t answer simple questions…. Hilarious!

    “Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences”

    You don’t understand hormones so of course you’d say this.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/04/15/race-testosterone-and-honor-culture/

    http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fsoc.2016.00001/full

    “Why honor culture don’t affect all lower income blacks?? Hum?”

    It does it affects all lower income people. You don’t know anything about testosterone. Nor how the body reacts to hormones nor why it happens. Low-income blacks have higher testosterone which is elevated due to honor culture. Middle income blacks of the same age don’t have levels as high…. Why could that be, expert Santo? I’ve told you why yet you don’t believe me. Your “armchair psychology” is useless because you don’t understand hormones not behavior. I do.

    So you can’t answer premises. You must concede the arguments then and if you were an intellectually honest person, you would concede the arguments and say I’m right. But you’re not intellectually honest. You’re a hack, just like PumpkinPerson.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  140. @Santoculto

    “DEVELOPMENT, literally speaking, OR ”reach”*

    Do you think we are DEVELOPED by parents and teachers*
    as products*”

    Things can happen without environmental input—Santoculto

  141. @Stephen R. Diamond

    “the physiological basis for differences in (fluid) intelligence.

    No. You can’t just say v would be this it that. If there were a physiological basis for g then it wouldn’t be a ranked trait. Would it make sense for g to be the only ranked trait in the human body by physiologists?

    It makes no logical sense. Psychologists need to stay in their psychological lane and stay out of fields they’re clueless on. Physiology isn’t a soft science like psychology.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  142. @CanSpeccy

    “Perhaps physiology is where the IQ-ists should be pursuing the holy grail of g”

    Please. No. Leave ideology out of physiology. Keep it in psychology. There is no physiological basis for g and if there were it wouldn’t be ranked. I repeat this because it’s true. It would make no sense for there to be only one ranked trait in the human body compared to all others. Is a higher bmr better than lower. Higher stroke volume? Higher blood pressure? See how stupid it is to say it’s physiological and then rank the trait? It makes no logical sense.

    In sum, no physiologist would suggest the following:

    (a) that within the normal range of physiological differences, a higher level is better than any others (as is supposed in the construction of IQ tests);

    (b) that there is a general index or “quotient” (a la IQ) that could meaningfully describe levels of physiological sufficiency or ability and individual differences in it;

    (c) that “normal” variation is associated with genetic variation (except in rare deleterious conditions); and

    (d) the genetic causation of such variation can be meaningfully separated from the environmental causes of the variation.

    A preoccupation with ranking variations, assuming normal distributions, and estimating their heritabilities simply does not figure in the field of physiology in the way that it does in the field of human intelligence. This is in stark contrast with the intensity of the nature-nurture debate in the human cognitive domain. But perhaps ideology has not infiltrated the subject of physiology as much as it has that of human intelligence. (Richardson, 2017: 166-167)

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/06/do-physiologists-study-general-intelligence/

    • Replies: @AP
    , @CanSpeccy
  143. @Stephen R. Diamond

    I read a news “The Downsides of higher IQ” and financial incapacities was of this downsides.

    I thought IQ emphasize crystallized over fluid intelligence even because real fluid skills only can be analyzed on real world scenarios (and not only in school or job place scenarios).

    One of the most important function of intelligence is the capacity to detect dangers. Because we tend to live in by now long term stable environments “we” tend to believe “know prioritarily dangers in our environment” is not a fundamental priority or worse, higher intelligence (but not wisdom) + prevalence of instincts or subconsciousness make many cognitively smart people detect “Politically incorrect views” as one of their dangers in their environments.

    The quickness to adapt to environment regardless how dysfunctional it can be and without a really wise judgment make many many cognitively smarter people internalize neo social commands even those that are against themselves as anti white narrative.

    In other words, instead lack of intelligence (really a lack of self reflective skills or longer and morally reasonable analysis) many of this people have cognitive but predominantly subconscious horsepower enough to quickly adapt to this current dysfunctional environment.

  144. AP says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Is a higher bmr better than lower. Higher stroke volume? Higher blood pressure? See how stupid it is to say it’s physiological and then rank the trait?

    Higher muscle strength? Higher visual, or hearing, acuity?

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  145. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Savant abilities, musical, mathematical, and artistic, provide even more compelling evidence, although I am unaware of a Savant humorist. I did however, meet a fellow with advanced frontal lobe degeneration who was extremely funny, though his memory was completely gone, and he died shortly after our meeting, which was at a dinner party hosted by judge who didn’t get the jokes — which made them all the funnier. But there was an example of someone probably too far gone to even attempt an IQ test, who was cracking jokes that went over the head of a presumably high IQ judge.

    These exceptional cases, of damaged people, aren’t much of an argument. One can say that strength in the right arm is highly correlated with strength in the left arm. But someone with a stroke resulting in right-side paralysis will be much weaker in the right arm than the left one. That doesn’t disprove the original statement.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @CanSpeccy
  146. @RaceRealist88

    In pumpkin person most people know you are extremely stupid. It’s a question of time to perceive this.

    Piece

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  147. @Santoculto

    More idioticness. Can’t address anything. Ha.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  148. @AP

    It’d be within normal variation. Physiologists don’t rant traits. Psychologists do.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @res
  149. @AP

    There are numerous cases of people with severe TBI having IQs in the normal range.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/17/traumatic-brain-injury-and-iq/

    Brain size isn’t important for intelligence. You can be missing half your brain and be exceptional according to the IQ test.

    • Replies: @AP
  150. @CanSpeccy

    I always try to see with myself if this environmental theory that we are extremely dependent of other people and ”environment” make sense and at least about most part of my interests, psychology for example, i have, well, ZERO parent or school influence, to become motivated, to learn something about it and to have ”insights”. The same for my older interest: geography.

    I have reasonable or normal familiar environment, i had a similar ”parenting” AND i’m very different in temperament than my direct family [since always*], not about everything of course, but still different. How do you explain this situation*

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  151. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @silviosilver

    So we can therefore happily ignore the evidence that IQ is the single best available predictor of life success.

    Sometime perhaps you’ll take the time to explain exactly what you mean by “life success” and show exactly how precisely “life success” is delineated by an IQ test. When you put you mind to such questions, you may find them more vacuous than you had thought.

    • Replies: @phil
    , @silviosilver
  152. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I really didn’t mean to slight you, but since I am probably at least twice your age, I feel I am entitled (a) not to jump at your command, and (b) to call you, with the kindliest intent, “dear boy.”

    The twice my age part is unlikely (it is kind of fun to see the assumptions people make about me online though). Not jumping at my command is fair enough (even if you are not twice my age), but if you are interested in intellectual debate then responding to my substantive points (especially one that refutes something you asserted) would be appropriate.

    “Dear boy” is a great passive aggressive insult (precisely because of its plausible deniability). At least that is the most frequent use I have seen for it in the Unz Review comments. Pardon me if I have incorrectly interpreted your intent. If I ask you to stop calling me “dear boy” (as I am now) I am justified as interpreting it as being meant in unkindly fashion in the future.

  153. @Santoculto

    No idea why your comments get published here. Nonsensical rambling, can’t address actual arguments, ad hominem and character attacks. That just shows your intelligence, or lack thereof.

    Is it so hard to say what you disagree with and why? I guess so…

    • Replies: @res
  154. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88

    There is no physiological basis for g

    Oh, OK, that settles it. I’m a physiologist and you are not, but I take your word for it. Still it’s interesting that Linus Pauling, the only person smart enough to win two unshared Nobel Prizes, maintained that a spoonful of glutamate can raise the IQ of a mental defective by from 5 to 25 points.

  155. @AP

    Since it would be a common assumption that collegiate athletes had higher activity levels as well as higher strength levels, compared to the non-athlete participants, the data for athletes vs. non-athletes were also assessed separately. There was a significant difference seen in mean duration of the test according to athletic status where athletes were found to have test durations 48% higher than non-athletes (123 ± 69 s vs. 83 ± 63 s) and thus different percentile rankings were generated for each of the categorical definitions of athletic status (varsity athletes versus non-varsity athletes). A value of 104 s was found to be the median score for athletes and 83 s for non-athletes.

    Within normal variation. Try again.

    Untangling environmental/genetic effects on physiological traits isn’t what physiologists do. Our systems are homeodynamic in nature, constantly changing due to environmental cues. Is the normal variation associated with genetic variation? Nope. You’d only see a difference in, for example, someone with muscular dystrophy.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @res
  156. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    These exceptional cases, of damaged people, aren’t much of an argument

    The argument being whether the intelligence of an individual is uniform across-the-board. You say it is, but if I cite an example of someone in whom it clearly is not, you say they are damaged. How do you know they are damaged? Because their intelligence is not uniform across-the-board, which is a circular argument.

    The fact that individuals do vary in ability from one domain to another indicates that difference abilities engage different processes and parts of the brain. That being the case, there obviously ample room for either genetic or environmental differentiation among the abilities of the individual by virtue of physiological or anatomical differences among the various processes and parts of the brain.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @res
  157. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    How do you explain this situation?

    That’s the one of life’s big questions, as this debate confirms.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  158. @CanSpeccy

    I’m not a physiologist. I understand it though.

    Here is the reference for the claim

    W. Vogel, D. M. Broverman, J. G.
    Draguns, and E. L. Klaiber, Psycho. Bull., 367 (1966).

    50 year old paper. Any followups?

    I’ll look for that paper later and leave my thoughts. Hopefully it’s on Sci hub. I don’t take second hand claims as gospel, I like checking references myself.

    • Replies: @res
  159. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But I assume that basic numeracy, and the ability to calculate odds, is helpful in making investment decisions, and that IQ tests include components that might be indicative of such skills.

    What you say is true but incomplete (and IMHO more “IQ-ist” than many comments you complain about, but it is nice to see you take a more realistic view on the utility of IQ tests).

    Take the stereotype of doctors being bad at investing. Doctors tend to be intelligent so this would be unexpected based on your statement. As far as I can tell this stereotype come from multiple factors:
    - Doctors are well paid so they are popular targets for financial shysters. (and the existence of the stereotype turns this into a positive feedback loop)
    - Doctors tend to be overconfident. Their ability in one field makes them assume they have expertise in all.

    In addition to the numeracy and probability abilities, which you emphasize, some other things that are important for financial shrewdness:
    - An ability to size up your counterparties in financial transactions. (which you did mention)
    - A willingness to prioritize financial issues.
    - The temperament not to make rash decisions. Some of the worst financial decisions involve selling at the bottom or buying at the top after being swept up by mob psychology.
    - Patience. Exploiting the time value of money is key. Especially since most people want things immediately.

    It would be interesting if we were able to assess the relative importance of these factors. Say as percent variance explained of some measure of financial shrewdness. Worth noting that wealth is not a good metric (see doctor example earlier, other income generating traits matter for wealth as well).

  160. AP says:
    @RaceRealist88

    There are numerous cases of people with severe TBI having IQs in the normal range

    So?

    Brain size isn’t important for intelligence.

    Correlation of brain size and IQ is .4, if I recall correctly. Not high, but real.

    You can be missing half your brain and be exceptional according to the IQ test.

    Examples?

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    , @CanSpeccy
  161. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The argument being whether the intelligence of an individual is uniform across-the-board. You say it is

    Not completely uniform, but generally so.

    You say it is, but if I cite an example of someone in whom it clearly is not, you say they are damaged. How do you know they are damaged? Because their intelligence is not uniform across-the-board, which is a circular argument.

    It’s circular in the sense that one can say that upper-body strength is generally uniform but when it is not (i.e, in victims of left-side paralysis, or some injury, or birth defect) this is due to “damage.”

    The fact that individuals do vary in ability from one domain to another indicates that difference abilities engage different processes and parts of the brain. That being the case, there obviously ample room for either genetic or environmental differentiation among the abilities of the individual by virtue of physiological or anatomical differences among the various processes and parts of the brain.

    Sure. This doesn’t contradict the observation that such abilities are generally correlated to each and that vast discrepancies between particular abilities are due to identifiable damage or defect.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  162. AP says:
    @RaceRealist88

    So were there rankings or norms, or not?

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  163. @CanSpeccy

    Further, the mental defectives are outside of the normal range of variation.

  164. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Stephen, if you had not guessed it, I know almost nothing about IQ tests. But I assume that basic numeracy, and the ability to calculate odds, is helpful in making investment decisions, and that IQ tests include components that might be indicative of such skills.

    So why are you filling this comment section with anti-IQ rhetoric if you know “almost nothing” about the subject? And no – an amateur investor (and a lot of professionals) will not use mathematical formulas to calculate “odds”. The number of unknown variables is basically infinite and most of them can’t be translated into numbers anyway. They will use their analytical skills (IQ related) but a lot will depend on experience, relevant industry knowledge, market knowledge, training, insider info or sheer luck (not IQ related).

    As for Twain: a high IQ person will be somewhat better equipped to recognize liars but the biggest factor is emotional. It’s difficult to resist a story that feels good and promises a lot unless you’ve already built a healthy dose of distrust and cynicism – which mostly comes from experience and/or knowledge. That’s why empty compliments work better on younger or less pretty girls.

  165. @AP

    “So?”

    Shows that large brains aren’t needed for high IQs.

    “Correlation of brain size and IQ is .4, if I recall correctly. Not high, but real.”

    16 percent of the variation is explained. It’s not high at all. Large brains aren’t needed for high IQs.

    “Examples?”

    Read this paper for review of the lit.

    http://www.human-existence.com/publications/Skoyles%20Human%20evolution%20expanded%20brains%20expertise%20not%20IQ.pdf

    • Replies: @AP
  166. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    It’d be within normal variation. Physiologists don’t rant traits. Psychologists do.

    Although I like much of what you say in this area, I think you are being overly doctrinaire on this particular point (and frankly, in a way I find surprising for a trainer who presumably is trying to improve physical traits like strength and BMI in his clients).

    I think AP is making some good points, but perhaps it would be worth taking a step back and asking some questions.

    Do you think it is meaningful to order traits like biceps strength or hearing high frequency range after noting the following:
    - Measurements are imprecise and variable. We can’t make precise pairwise orderings within the error bars of our measurements.
    - No one measurement is all important. When rank ordering other attributes I think there is an implicit assumption that all else is equal. This assumption is probably violated at the extremes. For example, a high hematocrit is good for aerobic performance. But you don’t want it too high because the blood becomes “sludgy” and heart attacks more likely.
    - Reducing complex traits to a single number is a problem. For example, biceps strength through which range of motion? What is the precise shape of the hearing acuity curve? But even in those cases it is possible to make judgments when Pareto dominance (not sure how descriptive this phrase is for this audience, see game theory for more on this) exists (e.g. this person has more acute hearing through the entire frequency range than that person).

    The idea of rank ordering is very different for traits which are “one-sided.” In other words, optimality occurs at one extreme or another. I think major errors occur when people assume a trait is “one-sided” when in reality there is a range with middle positions being optimal. Good examples of this are cholesterol and blood pressure. People tend to take a “lower is better” view, but you really don’t want either to be zero. I don’t think it is really possible to rank order traits with variation away from “optimal” in both directions. Though it is possible to do some analysis and make comparisons (e.g. mortality rates vs. cholesterol). And binning into ranges like “normal, better, best” may be possible.

    Back to the questions. Is it really accurate to say “Physiologists don’t ran(k) traits” when much of medicine does exactly that? See earlier blood pressure and cholesterol examples.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  167. phil says:
    @CanSpeccy

    People make all sorts of silly claims about how to raise IQ. For some background on the biological correlates of g, since Jensen, The g Factor, chapter 6.

  168. phil says:
    @CanSpeccy

    If “life success,” refers to happiness, there is no strong evidence that IQ per se increases happiness. However, it is related to occupational level, job performance, and labor market earnings.

    The case of Nobel Laureate James Heckman is instructive. He was sensitive about labor market discrimination and wrote a critical review of The Bell Curve. He tried to show how cognitive ability could be enhanced by education. He noted, however, that educational attainment itself depends on IQ. Later, he admitted to a publication of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve that he had become a fan of The Bell Curve—not for its discussion of genetic influences on IQ, but as a well-written discussion of the relevance of IQ for everyday life.

    In articles published in 2005 and 2006, his research team highlighted findings that differences in cognitive ability were a more important source of variation in labor market earnings than discrimination. Furthermore, group differences in performance on tests of cognitive ability given during adolescence can be traced back to differences in performance on IQ tests at ages 3-4. He continues to hope that early childhood education can make improvements in average black IQ, but he seems less sanguine about the possibilities than he used to be.

    • Replies: @res
    , @CanSpeccy
    , @utu
  169. @AP

    “The purpose of this study was to develop normative sex- and athlete-specific percentiles for a trunk stabilization and muscular endurance by using a prone forearm plank test in college-aged students. A second purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of habitual physical activity and the reason for test termination. “

    Read and understand the paper.

    Says nothing about the ranking of traits.

  170. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Is it so hard to say what you disagree with and why? I guess so…

    This quote has a variety of attributions. I don’t know which is correct.

    http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/07/04/legal-adage/

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/918291-if-the-facts-are-against-you-argue-the-law-if

    If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  171. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Untangling environmental/genetic effects on physiological traits isn’t what physiologists do.

    I’m not sure what definition of “physiologist” you are using, but some people do that:

    Discovery and refinement of loci associated with lipid levels

    http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v45/n11/full/ng.2797.html

    I don’t have the time to look at the backgrounds of all of the contributing authors, but I would not want to bet against a physiologist being among them.

    Is the normal variation associated with genetic variation? Nope.

    How do you define “normal variation”? If you mean “variation within the normal range” then you are simply wrong.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  172. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The argument being whether the intelligence of an individual is uniform across-the-board. You say it is

    Nice strawman.

  173. AP says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Shows that large brains aren’t needed for high IQs.

    Correct. But that’s not what you originally wrote. You originally wrote “Brain size isn’t important for intelligence.” Unless we were discussing a specific person with a small brain and high intelligence (we were not), this statement was false. There is a not high, but real, correlation between brain size and intelligence. In general, brain size accounts for 16% of intelligence. That’s not huge, but it is not unimportant.

    “Examples?”

    Read this paper for review of the lit.

    The link did not show cases of “You can be missing half your brain and be exceptional according to the IQ test.” as you claimed.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  174. @CanSpeccy

    I thought a person who have better intrapersonal skills can answer this, or/also with better autobiographical memory [above avg at least].

    This is my life, when we are talking [human] behavior we are talking about ourselves, why not ourselves, to try to understand our own behaviors and its origins*

    Nothing more appropriated isn’t*

    Again, me as my best observer do not detected any enormous influence of OTHERS on me, at least in this INTRUSIVE ways, as if i’m truly a totally dependent being of other people’s/circunstances and only react in passive way.

    Nurturist theories just tell us that we are predominantly to totally passive/dependent and that some/maybe ALL traits we have now, as adults, was transmited to us, already during our earlier lifes, with little ”opportunity to choice”… look dictatorial to me and incorrect.

    I don’t chose to be shy. I don’t chose to be bad on math. BUT none made me become like that in very intrusive ways. Indeed i’m not shy with persons i have significant trust.

    At least by myself i know about most of my intimate behaviors i have total autonomy or will. Of course, we are interacting with our environments all the time and it’s very obvious what is extrinsic from us usually can attract us. But the fundamental trigger always come from us.

    I really don’t think it’s a big question, at least for me, it’s clear that all my behaviors are on my jurisprudence.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  175. @res

    “Although I like much of what you say in this area, I think you are being overly doctrinaire on this particular point (and frankly, in a way I find surprising for a trainer who presumably is trying to improve physical traits like strength and BMI in his clients).”

    I wouldn’t say I’m being doctrinaire, just realistic about physiology. Improving strength and BMI in people is within the normal variation of humans. Furthermore, you can be healthy and live a long life with a high BMI if you exercise and eat well. It’s about health—not weight loss.

    “I think AP is making some good points, but perhaps it would be worth taking a step back and asking some questions”

    I think he is too.

    “Do you think it is meaningful to order traits like biceps strength or hearing high frequency range”

    Yes. If you measure in the same places under the same conditions (i.e., eating the same foods and drinking around the same amount of water per week, among other variables) you will be able to get a meaningful estimate of whether or not you’re going in the right direction in about 4 weeks of training.

    “Measurements are imprecise and variable. We can’t make precise pairwise orderings within the error bars of our measurements.”

    Right because people have different somatypes. They are variable, but see above for how to attempt to control for factors that throw measurements off. If you do that, then you can measure the trait meaningfully for individuals and then compare.

    “No one measurement is all important. When rank ordering other attributes I think there is an implicit assumption that all else is equal. This assumption is probably violated at the extremes. For example, a high hematocrit is good for aerobic performance. But you don’t want it too high because the blood becomes “sludgy” and heart attacks more likely”

    Correct. There are problems with lower aerobic performance as well. The point is that there is a huge range of normal variation in physiological traits and they aren’t ranked. The assumption is therefore violated at low extremes as well with huge variations in the normal range with no deleterious consequences.

    “Reducing complex traits to a single number is a problem”

    I agree. Would you say the same for IQ?

    “For example, biceps strength through which range of motion?”

    Test everyone on the same exercise.

    “What is the precise shape of the hearing acuity curve?”

    No idea. I’ll get back to you there.

    “But even in those cases it is possible to make judgments when Pareto dominance (not sure how descriptive this phrase is for this audience, see game theory for more on this) exists (e.g. this person has more acute hearing through the entire frequency range than that person).”

    There would, of course, be a large range in the normal variation of hearing. I love the Pareto Principle. Great model. The main point here is the physiological traits have a wide range in the normal variation with no deleterious consequences. You’ll only notice something wrong in extreme cases which fall outside of the normal range.

    “I think major errors occur when people assume a trait is “one-sided” when in reality there is a range with middle positions being optimal.”

    Correct and the range with ‘Middle positions’ is optimal.

    “Good examples of this are cholesterol and blood pressure. People tend to take a “lower is better” view, but you really don’t want either to be zero. I don’t think it is really possible to rank order traits with variation away from “optimal” in both directions”

    Correct. So why would general intelligence be any different?

    “Though it is possible to do some analysis and make comparisons (e.g. mortality rates vs. cholesterol). And binning into ranges like “normal, better, best” may be possible.”

    No two bodies are the same, there are large physiologic and anatomic differences between people so what works for one person may not work for the other.

    “Is it really accurate to say “Physiologists don’t ran(k) traits” when much of medicine does exactly that? See earlier blood pressure and cholesterol examples.”

    I’ll get numbers later but there is a large variation in those traits with no mortality different. There are numerous genetic and environmental factors that influence those two traits you mentioned. The variation is large in these physiologic traits and we only notice something wrong when they fall outside the range—due to either genetics, environment or both.

    • Replies: @res
  176. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    It’s good that someone here as a grasp of factor analysis and I would be interested in your reaction to the following.

    As I understand it, factor analysis is performed with population-wide measurements of two or more properties of individuals, with the object of determining whether there is a factor, or several, that underlie(s) some or all of the population variation in all of the measured properties.

    If I have that more or less right, then questions arises both as to the nature and the significance of the identified factor or factors. Assuming for simplicity’s sake that Jordan Peterson is correct that in the factor analysis of cognitive test results g eats your postulated s, what does the existence of g mean? To which the answer, I take it, is that there is some real variable, the value for which in any individual, dictates that individual’s ability in all cognitive domains.

    From that conclusion, two questions arise, what is that real variable that underlies g, and to what extent does g dictate an individuals ability across all cognitive domains.

    The Pearsonian intercorrelation matrix published here (which seems typical of multiple comparable data sets), indicates that cognitive capacities are generally poorly correlated with one another, the mean value of r in this case being around 0.3. What that means is that, on average, population variation in any one cognitive test result accounts for less than 10% (r squared) of population variation in any other cognitive test result. From this, I conclude that although g may account for variation among cognitive capacities, it doesn’t account for much of that variation. As such, I embrace g as a plausible but not very interesting or important factor in explaining variation in intellectual capacity both within and among individuals.

    As to what g should be attributed to, it must be, as with all other organismal traits, the product of both genes and environment. Which of the two is most important does not seem to be a very interesting question since the magnitude of g is so slight. The slightness of the influence of g, forces us to accept that other factors, genetic or environmental, play the largest role in the determination of individual and population intellectual differentiation.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    , @utu
  177. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    50 year old paper. Any followups?

    The orthomolecular medicine idea was popular in some places during the 1960s and 1970s (around the same time as LSD research, there are actually some connections). The medical establishment made a concerted effort to “prove it wrong” with the result it is only a fringe concept now (e.g. recent references in reputable journals are scarce). If you are sincerely interested look for the work of Abram Hoffer (and Pauling) and form your own opinion. Here is a good place to look for references: http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/

    As for myself, after reading one of Pauling’s books where he complained about one of the debunking “replication” studies dramatically changing the dosage of vitamin C (and other aspects of the study protocol) used in their “replication” I chased down the actual references and saw that he was representing things accurately, which gave him more credibility than the “replicators” in my eyes. That the “replication” paper has received many more citations than the original (it is fascinating that most citing papers don’t mention both)–even given the poor quality of the “replication”–makes the bias clear.

    Here is a case study of the incident I mentioned: https://www.cancertutor.com/war_pauling/

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  178. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    You can be missing half your brain and be exceptional according to the IQ test.

    Examples?

    Here’s a nice one from Science Magazine:

    Is Your Brain Really Necessary

  179. @Santoculto

    CanSpeccy,

    Sorry, this comment is really confused, i hope you had understood.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  180. @res

    The normal definition.

    I’ll check the paper out later.

    “How do you define “normal variation”? If you mean “variation within the normal range” then you are simply wrong.”

    Yes variation within the normal range. The point is that these traits widely fluctuate throughout the day and there is a wide variation within this normal range. It’s apart of the adaptiveness of physiology to create such wide variation in ever changing environments. Even then, the whole system is dynamic and interacts with the environment constantly changing the variation. Within the wide range of physiologica variation, individuals function well enough, which is the point.

    • Replies: @res
  181. res says:
    @phil

    Link to the Heckman interview where he talks about The Bell Curve: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/interview-with-james-heckman

    Link to Heckman’s 2006 paper: The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market Outcomes and Social Behavior

    http://www.nber.org/papers/w12006

    Phil, do you have any comments on the estimated coefficients in his Table 1? He appears to be giving numbers for both binary and continuous (standardized) variables and I find it hard to interpret the relative effect sizes between those categories. Presumably the correlation of cognitive measures with educational measures is also an issue here?

    His abstract seems to emphasize the importance of noncognitive skills, but given the biases typical in this type of research I am interested in your interpretation. Could you say a bit more about how you judge the relative importance? It looks to me like the educational factors were most important, but that is hard to interpret given cognitive correlation.

    Abstract:

    This paper established that a low dimensional vector of cognitive and noncognitive skills explains a variety of labor market and behavioral outcomes. For many dimensions of social performance cognitive and noncognitive skills are equally important. Our analysis addresses the problems of measurement error, imperfect proxies, and reverse causality that plague conventional studies of cognitive and noncognitive skills that regress earnings (and other outcomes) on proxies for skills. Noncognitive skills strongly influence schooling decisions, and also affect wages given schooling decisions. Schooling, employment, work experience and choice of occupation are affected by latent noncognitive and cognitive skills. We study a variety of correlated risky behaviors such as teenage pregnancy and marriage, smoking, marijuana use, and participation in illegal activities. The same low dimensional vector of abilities that explains schooling choices, wages, employment, work experience and choice of occupation explains these behavioral outcomes.

    • Replies: @phil
  182. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    The argument being whether the intelligence of an individual is uniform across-the-board. You say it is

    Not completely uniform, but generally so.

    “Generally so.”

    Actually, not so.

    According to the data here, anyhow. The correlation between SAT math and SAT verbal score is 0.685, meaning that only 42% of variation in SAT verbal is explained by variation in SAT math.

    And of the 42%, how much is attributable to schooling and other environmental factors?

    Some, certainly, and probably most since only people of the upper middle class who have attended private and presumably, therefore, generally good schools take the SAT tests. At such schools, one would expect care is taken to ensure all students do as well as they can in all subjects, so any weakness in math or verbal performance would be subject to remedial tutoring, thereby promoting relative uniformity in performance.

    • Replies: @res
  183. @AP

    “You originally wrote “Brain size isn’t important for intelligence.””

    It’s not.

    “There is a not high, but real, correlation between brain size and intelligence. In general, brain size accounts for 16% of intelligence. That’s not huge, but it is not unimportant.”

    I know. I talked about it up already. Skoyles brings up a .5 correlation. Using the correlation, 25 percent of the variation is explained leaving a ton of room for other factors.

    “The link did not show cases of “You can be missing half your brain and be exceptional according to the IQ test.” as you claimed.”

    27. The brain mass following hemispherectomy in these three individuals can only be estimated. The human cerebral cortex makes up 80% of the total brain (using the percentage found by post mortem rather than MRI); as a result, hemispherectomy will reduce it by around 40%. Assuming that their initial brains were average, their brain mass would have been 1371 cc, of which 1097 cc would be cerebral cortex and associated white matter. Thus, they would have lost around 548 cc of cortical tissue, leaving them with a brain of around 823 cc. Similar calculations for the average volume of a female brain would suggest a brain after hemispherectomy of 730 cc.

    People with severe TBI can have IQs in the normal range. People can have chunks of their brains removed with small hit to their results on IQ test. This is a fact.

    People with erectus sized brains can have IQs in the normal range. Do you contest this? People with chunks of their brain missing can score in the normal range and lead a good life without a problem. Do you contest this?

    • Replies: @AP
  184. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @phil

    [Heckman's]research team highlighted findings that differences in cognitive ability were a more important source of variation in labor market earnings than discrimination. Furthermore, group differences in performance on tests of cognitive ability given during adolescence can be traced back to differences in performance on IQ tests at ages 3-4. He continues to hope that early childhood education can make improvements in average black IQ, but he seems less sanguine about the possibilities than he used to be.

    First, that cognitive capacity determines earnings is not some kind of major scientific breakthrough. I mean it’s obvious that to earn several hundred thousand a year a s CalTech physics professor, or even just a doctor, accountant or lawyer, you have to have considerable intellectual ability.

    Second, that differences in cognitive performance at different stages of childhood tend to be correlated is not surprising either. Whether intelligence is genetically determined or environmentally determined, one expects the cognitive ability of the individual to show some consistency.

    Third, that there is hope that education can improve cognitive capacity seems reasonable enough. I mean, the Flynn effect, IQ test sophistication to mention just a couple of factors that demonstrate an environmental effect on IQ. Obviously, therefore, schooling which is explicitly aimed at improving cognitive perfomance will, generally, improve cognitive performance.

    • Replies: @res
  185. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    Sorry, this comment is really confused, i hope you had understood.

    Well I’m thinking about it!

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  186. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    “Reducing complex traits to a single number is a problem”

    I agree. Would you say the same for IQ?

    Of course. I would have thought my comments here have made that clear, but it is good to be explicit.

    “For example, biceps strength through which range of motion?”

    Test everyone on the same exercise.

    Right, but if there are multiple exercises possible which should be used as a basis for comparing “biceps strength”? Is one exercise “better” than another for that purpose?

    “What is the precise shape of the hearing acuity curve?”

    No idea. I’ll get back to you there.

    Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to the differing shapes of two individuals being compared. Here is a link showing typical trends by age: http://www.roger-russell.com/hearing/hearing.htm
    In terms of what I meant, how to compare a steeper loss at high frequencies vs. a shallow loss starting at low frequencies (curves crossing)?

    To be clear, the Pareto Principle is different from Pareto Dominance. Brief definition: http://www.gametheory.net/dictionary/ParetoDominated.html
    “An outcome of a game is Pareto dominated if some other outcome would make at least one player better off without hurting any other player. That is, some other outcome is weakly preferred by all players and strictly preferred by at least one player. If an outcome is not Pareto dominated by any other, than it is Pareto optimal, named after Vilfredo Pareto.”

    More detail: http://cswww.essex.ac.uk/staff/poli/gp-field-guide/92KeepingtheObjectivesSeparate.html

    Pareto dominance is a very useful concept for talking about comparisons when there are multiple orthogonal variables which can be ranked independently.

    Correct and the range with ‘Middle positions’ is optimal.

    “Good examples of this are cholesterol and blood pressure. People tend to take a “lower is better” view, but you really don’t want either to be zero. I don’t think it is really possible to rank order traits with variation away from “optimal” in both directions”

    Correct. So why would general intelligence be any different?

    This is a key philosophical point which helps make clear where you are coming from. There are two aspects to it:
    - Is “normal” “optimal”?
    - Are there no variables where more (or less) is always better (all else being equal)?

    IMHO since humans have evolved over an extended period “normal” tends to involve an optimal set of trade-offs for the organism as a whole. This is different from being optimal across the board or optimal for accomplishing a particular task. I also think the possibility exists for one individual to Pareto dominate another in a meaningful sense. Visualize an extreme case of twins identical except for one having additional (serious) genetic load. Individual Pareto dominance should be unlikely in the real world, and in particular I think it is clear that our continental races do not have a Pareto dominant relationship between any two races. (rereading that I actually think we should include it is a key belief of HBD based race realism, it makes clear that “race realism” differs from “racism” and “superiority” is not a meaningful universal concept) It seems only sensible that having evolved in different environments the different races are each likely to be optimal in some real senses within their own respective environments (though worth noting the possibility of the ability to create and effectively use advanced technology perhaps changing this equation after we start modifying our environment).

    I think in a very real sense more IQ is better. However, this trades off with:
    - Metabolic cost and other trade-offs within our range of genetic possibilities (e.g torsion dystonia risk).
    - Possible alienation from not being able to relate well to the “normal.”

    Then there is the what is currently normal issue. Presumably humans evolved in a way to optimally balance metabolism and energy storage. However, the environment we evolved in is very different from our current environment. Thus IMHO the typical BMI in the US is not optimal, but those survival curves make a case for “optimal” BMI being higher than our quoted normal ranges indicate.

    All of that said, I am not sure how I feel about the philosophical issue posed overall. But I do think it is reasonable to posit that one end of the normal range is better than the other. As an example, with IQ I think being +2SD is clearly better than being average, which is clearly better than being -2SD.”

    This does not say the ordering applies to anything other than IQ and the resulting ability to perform certain tasks (and depending on the task a sufficiently good or bad set of other traits might be more important than IQ in that case).

    “Though it is possible to do some analysis and make comparisons (e.g. mortality rates vs. cholesterol). And binning into ranges like “normal, better, best” may be possible.”

    No two bodies are the same, there are large physiologic and anatomic differences between people so what works for one person may not work for the other.

    Agreed. There is a great deal of complexity here which makes interpretation less than clear cut, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can still draw meaningful conclusions (just as with IQ). It can be meaningful to say both “A is stronger than B” and “because of that A is better than B in that respect.” I can have a higher vertical leap than someone which means just that. What other inferences can be drawn are where the problems come in.

    “Is it really accurate to say “Physiologists don’t ran(k) traits” when much of medicine does exactly that? See earlier blood pressure and cholesterol examples.”

    I’ll get numbers later but there is a large variation in those traits with no mortality different. There are numerous genetic and environmental factors that influence those two traits you mentioned. The variation is large in these physiologic traits and we only notice something wrong when they fall outside the range—due to either genetics, environment or both.

    It depends on what you call large. For example, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490060/figure/Fig1/
    This one is interesting. The quartile with the highest mortality risk actually includes the lower end of the “normal” BMI range (18.5 – 21.55): https://www.researchgate.net/figure/51499239_fig1_Kaplan-Meier-survival-curves-per-body-mass-index-quartiles-and-univariate-analysis-of

    IMHO your “only notice something wrong when they fall outside the range” is overly simplistic. Though useful (good) in a “perfect is the enemy of the good sense.” Your simplification is useful for conveying concepts to non-experts. Just don’t confuse it with reality.

    P.S. If I had to offer a definition of “IQ-ist” it would be confusing the model/measure (IQ) with the reality (intelligence). I sincerely believe the people advocating IQ here do not meet that definition, but I would be interested in specific evidence to the contrary.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  187. @CanSpeccy

    I thought a person who have better intrapersonal skills can answer this, or/also with better autobiographical memory [above avg at least].

    This is my life, when we are talking [human] behavior we are talking about ourselves, why not ourselves, to try to understand our own behaviors and its origins*

    Nothing more appropriated isn’t*

    This part you understand*

    Again, me as my best observer do not detected any enormous influence of OTHERS on me, at least in this INTRUSIVE ways, as if i’m truly a totally dependent being of other people’s/circunstances and only would react in passive way.

    And this part*

    I confuse philosophical perspective [we don't choice our behaviors per si, no have complete free will] with psycho-genetic perspective [but what we was born define/limitates/direct our behaviors].

    I’m passive about my own intrinsic/genetic features. For example, i can’t increase my mathematical AND my verbal skill [at least in my mother tongue] beyond what i already reached. But i can, maybe, manipulate them, if i can’t increase it.

    But, i’m not equally passive about environment, specially when i/we have the chance to be more free. So, if a teacher try to force my head to learn more about maths, ”my body” will react in negative way, JUST LIKE when we do a excessive physical activity, our bodies know our limits and force us to stop. Similar situation happen with intellectual tasks that we are not intrinsically designed to reach, to learn and to replicate. When often happen also when we, conscious or not-so, self-convince that we are perfectly good to engage in certain intellectual activities, for example, right now, this debate, people with different cognitive styles, different backgrounds, different strategies, different cognitive biases.

    I hope you can understand better now my comment.

  188. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    I think I see part of our disconnect (part is simple disagreement AFAICT).

    You are talking both about “normal” (ordinary, typical) variation within a single individual (either short or long term) and about an individual being within the “normal range” (say for a lab test, for example an individual within +- 3 SD of average).

    I would posit that genetics can affect both an individual’s personal set point and their variation around that. Do you disagree with that? Note that I am not implying the irrelevance of other factors (like the diurnal cycle).

    Within the wide range of physiologica variation, individuals function well enough, which is the point.

    Agreed except for not getting “which is the point”. I am getting confused now. Could you try restating your impression of my position in a paragraph? I would do so first (and my second paragraph is a partial attempt), but I am honestly confused enough right now that I don’t understand your overall position.

  189. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    I hope you can understand better now my comment.

    Well some.

    … when we are talking [human] behavior we are talking about ourselves, why not ourselves, to try to understand our own behaviors and its origins

    If, as Alexander Pope said, the proper study of mankind is man, then self-examination is surely part of the study of mankind, although, there are different varieties of mankind, so not everything about mankind will be learned from self examination.

    [I] do not detected any enormous influence of OTHERS on me

    Wow. I on the contrary, perceive my mentality to have been largely shaped by others. For example, I speak and think in English, not Chinese, or whatever, a result obviously of my social milieu.

    Virtually all of what I know of literature, science and the arts, I learned from others, teachers, authors of books, people posting on blogs, etc.

    So, if a teacher try to force my head to learn more about maths, ”my body” will react in negative way…

    The interaction of pupil and teacher surely varies greatly among cases. Your emotional reaction to an assertive teacher may be counterproductive. But Sam Johnson, one of the most learned Englishmen of his time said:

    There is now less flogging in our great schools than formerly, but then less is learned there; so that what the boys get at one end they lose at the other.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  190. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You have made the same mistake multiple times in this thread. You are using the lack of correlation between separate subtests (here SAT math and verbal) to criticize IQ and g. The appropriate measures to use for that are the correlations between IQ and the various subtests. Just because I can come up with two subtests which are not well correlated with each other that does not mean g lacks explanatory power for both.

    Here is a study which looks at a measure of g compared with SAT scores: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/pdf/ps/Frey.pdf

    From the abstract:

    In Study 1, we used the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979.
    Measures of g were extracted from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and
    correlated with SAT scores of 917 participants. The resulting correlation was .82 (.86 corrected
    for nonlinearity).

    So more than two thirds of variance explained. Pretty impressive. Especially given measurement noise.

    From page 2:

    Furthermore, empirical evidence suggests a substantial relationship between the SAT and g. In a study of 339 undergraduates, Brodnick and Ree (1995) used covariance structure modeling to examine the relationship between psychometric g, socioeconomic variables, and achievement-test scores. They found substantial general-factor loadings on both the math (.698) and the verbal (.804) SAT subtests. Because the psychometric g Brodnick and Ree used was extracted from ththey used the SAT to develop their measure of g, it is not clear if this general factor is the same as that obtained from standard intelligence tests. If the general factors are indeed the same, then the SAT may have been overlooked as a potentially useful measure of general cognitive functioning.

    So about 49% of math and 65% of verbal variance for the SAT explained by g. Again, pretty impressive. I wonder if the relatively low math ceiling (this was the pre-1995 SAT presumably) is part of the reason for the lower math correlation.

    And of the 42%, how much is attributable to schooling and other environmental factors?

    Some, certainly, and probably most since only people of the upper middle class who have attended private and presumably, therefore, generally good schools take the SAT tests. At such schools, one would expect care is taken to ensure all students do as well as they can in all subjects, so any weakness in math or verbal performance would be subject to remedial tutoring, thereby promoting relative uniformity in performance.

    Agreed about some. It would be interesting to try to evaluate how much (rather than glibly speculating). I was not able to find a test-retest correlation for the SAT (does anyone have a reference?), but this study: A Test-Retest Reliability Study of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

    http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/47/3/601.pdf

    Gives a value of about 0.9 for the WAIS. That is about 80% of variance explained so it seems about half (19%/42%) is a good initial estimate for the proportion of the 42% of unexplained variance which is attributable to measurement noise.

    Since we keep talking about correlations here, let’s review what are commonly considered “strong” correlations. From https://explorable.com/statistical-correlation

    Value of r Strength of relationship
    -1.0 to -0.5 or 1.0 to 0.5 Strong
    -0.5 to -0.3 or 0.3 to 0.5 Moderate
    -0.3 to -0.1 or 0.1 to 0.3 Weak
    -0.1 to 0.1 None or very weak

    Gosh, those 0.7 and 0.8 correlations look pretty good. Feel free to cite other ideas of “strong” correlations.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @CanSpeccy
  191. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    First, that cognitive capacity determines earnings is not some kind of major scientific breakthrough.

    You sound like an IQ-ist.

    Thanks though, your making the oversimplification of saying “determines” rather than something more accurate like “strongly effects” helps me understand why you are so quick to assume others think the same even when they use the more accurate language. I am continually amazed at how much behavior is explained by projection.

    P.S. Your response to phil also makes clear how much these conversations are about motte and bailey issues. It is interesting how much you moderated your position when engaging with him.

  192. @res

    It was for me Res?

    • Replies: @res
  193. @CanSpeccy

    Many known philosophers love to create that strong sentences. It’s doesn’t mean they are right.

    My example at priori it’s not about abstract “humanity”. It’s about me. But as “humanity” is a sum of all human individuals so I believe my example may be extrapolated.

    Because “there is different kind of mankind” it’s doesn’t mean the individual may can understand itself more than others specially if he start to self know better. Remember intrapersonal skills and not that IQ-centric approach, ;)

    About language it’s indisputable that environment/people have a fundamental role.

    But about other aspects, you believe you learn from others but if you no have capacity to learn arts or literature you never would learn this. Do you agree with me that we are not limitless isn’t???

    No, I’m not a half of path between a teacher and myself, I’m the end of this path and regardless the pedagogical intervention IF I’m not intelligent to learn something I will not, it’s healthy and intellectually humble to accept this. We are invencible, we are not perfect.

    Correcting

    “Individual may CAN’T understand itself more than others…”

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @CanSpeccy
  194. @Santoculto

    We are NOT invincible

    -.->.<

  195. How much behavior is explained by projection…

    And you supposedly is protected from cognitive biases. Tell me how to become a master thinker as you please!!

    Ooops

    Over simplification

  196. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    You are using the lack of correlation between separate subtests (here SAT math and verbal) to criticize IQ and g.

    It would be easier to understand what your are claiming to be my mistake if you were more explicit. What do you mean by “criticizing IQ.” Are you referring my contention that IQ is an misnomer for whatever it is that “IQ” test measure?

    If so, perhaps you would explain how “IQ” tests assess judgement, imagination, wit, and aesthetic sensibility whether artistic, musical or in any of the other of the arts, not to mention other attributes that are considered manifestations of acquired skill, or intelligence.

    As for the study you cite, do you happen to have something along the same lines published in a peer-reviewed journal?

    • Replies: @res
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
  197. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    Do you agree with me that we are not limitless isn’t???

    Of course. But then where is the limit? You don’t know until you work at the margins of your present limitations.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  198. res says:
    @Santoculto

    It was trying to explain your behavior to RaceRealist88.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  199. @CanSpeccy

    I believe most part of time in reasonable societies we work on our margins.

    Do you already tested with yourself your beliefs on nurturism???

    Almost things we do its via intrinsic motivation, we want to do. Why only 2% of students tend to be so engaged or motivated to study scholastic subjects than 98%???

  200. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    It would be easier to understand what your are claiming to be my mistake if you were more explicit.

    I was referring to your comment 188 (to which I replied) and your comment 182.

    What do you mean by “criticizing IQ.” Are you referring my contention that IQ is an misnomer for whatever it is that “IQ” test measure?

    See your comment 182 where you assert:

    The Pearsonian intercorrelation matrix published here (which seems typical of multiple comparable data sets), indicates that cognitive capacities are generally poorly correlated with one another, the mean value of r in this case being around 0.3. What that means is that, on average, population variation in any one cognitive test result accounts for less than 10% (r squared) of population variation in any other cognitive test result. From this, I conclude that although g may account for variation among cognitive capacities, it doesn’t account for much of that variation.

    To spell things out (I thought my first paragraph in comment 196 was explicit enough about this, but I will humor you, contrast this to your unhelpful attitude in comment 130): I considered your final sentence to be criticizing g by stating it does not account for much of the variation between the low intercorrelation subtests. Just because there happen to be two subtests with low correlation it does not mean g fails to account for a substantial variation of the entire suite of subtests. It is necessary to have a variety of subtests to pick up different aspects of intelligence and you are cherry picking those with low intercorrelations for the numbers you cite.

    What I was calling your mistake was using the subtest intercorrelations as a measure of g’s explanatory power rather the the correlations of g with the subtests. I would argue that the percent variance g explains of all the subtests is an even better metric.

    Your comment 188 is making a similar argument, but for the SAT and less fleshed out.

    As for the study you cite, do you happen to have something along the same lines published in a peer-reviewed journal?

    What are you referring to? There are three links in my comment 196. Two to peer reviewed studies–upon which I based my arguments, and a third to a random website which was used to support an aside meant as a bit of snarky humor. Are you really criticizing the suitability of my references here? That is hilarious given how that comment compares to the norm here for thoroughness of reference support.

    This is doubly funny given that your link in comment 188 was to a Powerpoint presentation (with no embedded study reference). Project much?

    Come on CanSpeccy. You can do better.

  201. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    And, by the way, have you read the article by Brent Bridgman, on the article by that you quote from.

    Bridgeman’s article is entitled:

    Unbelievable Results When Predicting IQ From SAT Scores
    A Comment on Frey and Detterman (2004)

    • Replies: @res
  202. @res

    Trying…

    When you learn your own cognitive biases you try to explain other-behaviors ok*

    • Replies: @res
  203. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I had not seen that. Thanks.

    If I read correctly, Frey and Detterman (2004) used two studies to generate IQ estimates from SAT scores. The first study used NLSY79 data (i.e. the pre-1995 SAT) and gave equation 1 as (where SAT_ is the square of the combined SAT score):
    X’IQ = (0.126 * SAT) + (-4.71E-5 * SAT_) + 40.063
    The second study used the post-recentered SAT and gave equation 2 as:
    X’IQ = (0.095 * SAT-M) + (-0.003 * SAT-V) + 50.241
    (later corrected to, as noted by Bridgeman, the erratum is available at http://faculty.tamucc.edu/sfriday/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Psychological-Science-2004-Frey-373-8.pdf ):
    X’IQ = (0.095 * SAT-M) + (0.003 * SAT-V) + 50.241

    So let’s look at both equations with the hypothetical scores of:
    pre-1995: SAT-V = 420 and SAT-M = 470
    post-1995: SAT-V = 500, SAT-M = 500

    Plugging those numbers in equations 1 and 2 respectively we find:
    For equation 1: (0.126 * 890) + (-4.71e-5 * 890^2) + 40.063 = 114.9
    For equation 2: (0.095*500) + (0.003*500) + 50.241 = 99.241

    So Bridgeman is right about the discrepancy. I am skeptical of his explanation given that this example is in the center of the distribution. The fit should be accurate there if anywhere. I think it more likely there was an additional error (e.g. that 0.003 coefficient seems surprising small–in this case it only contributes 1.5 points, especially given that verbal is usually found to better correlate with IQ, though perhaps not for Ravens?). But who can tell for sure 13 years later?

    I also found Frey and Detterman’s discussion of the equations unsatisfying, especially “Equation 2 is better suited than Equation 1 for predicting high-end IQ” given that the pre-1995 SAT had a higher ceiling. I suspect the issue they ran into is that the squared term likely introduced an unrealistic downturn at the high end which was an artifact from using a quadratic (notice that equation 2 was linear) and the fit being dominated by the center of the range. This falls into the “confusing the model with reality” area by extrapolating a model either beyond the data used to derive it or (as here) into a region where the model fits relatively poorly because of limited data.

    Although this makes me a bit more skeptical of Frey and Detterman (2004) overall, I don’t think it really reflects on the correlations I cited. Thanks for making me take a more critical look at that paper though.

    If you have any substantive response to the evidence I quoted and my arguments I am all ears. Barely related FUD is unsatisfying in terms of responsiveness to my arguments..

    • Replies: @res
  204. res says:
    @Santoculto

    When you learn your own cognitive biases you try to explain other-behaviors ok*

    I’ll tell you what, Santoculto. I’ll consider taking that advice seriously as soon as you start doing so yourself.

    If you want to prove me wrong all you have to do is start using evidence and reasoned argument instead of speculation and insults. Don’t you want to prove me wrong?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  205. AP says:
    @RaceRealist88

    I know. I talked about it up already. Skoyles brings up a .5 correlation. Using the correlation, 25 percent of the variation is explained leaving a ton of room for other factors.

    Something accounting for up to 1/4 of IQ in the general population is not unimportant.

    27. The brain mass following hemispherectomy in these three individuals can only be estimated. The human cerebral cortex makes up 80% of the total brain (using the percentage found by post mortem rather than MRI); as a result, hemispherectomy will reduce it by around 40%. Assuming that their initial brains were average, their brain mass would have been 1371 cc, of which 1097 cc would be cerebral cortex and associated white matter. Thus, they would have lost around 548 cc of cortical tissue, leaving them with a brain of around 823 cc. Similar calculations for the average volume of a female brain would suggest a brain after hemispherectomy of 730 cc.

    So where is “exceptional?”

    People with erectus sized brains can have IQs in the normal range. Do you contest this? People with chunks of their brain missing can score in the normal range and lead a good life without a problem. Do you contest this?

    I don’t contest your statements above, But that’s not what you originally claimed. You claimed that such people could have exceptional IQs.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  206. @res

    Maybe this explain why you have affinities with NaziRealist here…

    I already prove you wrong, do you remember*

    Maybe not, maybe your memory is too much selective.

    I don’t want prove you wrong or right, to me, i don’t care about you, really, but unfortunately, to know people as you are abundant and often empowerished, is very depressing…. period.

    But when you intrude into a ” conversation ” that is not your business, and to, politely, insult me, well ….

    IQism

    HERE in the epicenter of HBD-sphere, where IQism is really intense if not its nuclei [and MENSA too].

    IQ is not intelligence;

    IQ measure some important aspects of intelligence [namely, semantic memory/crystallized + some fluid skills];

    IQ was designed to measure/to find/to express intelligence, and not itself;

    IQ express reasonably to very well individual and collective quantitative [semantic memory/GENERAL knowledge/crystallized] dimension of intelligence;

    Intelligence is also psychological, it’s the combination of personality and cognition;

    Intelligence varies in size [what IQ measure], type and qualitative levels;

    IQ don’t measure creativity [one of the most important features of human/universal intelligence]. Don’t measure rationality or wisdom [often differentiates in degree of expressivity];

    MI theory maybe it’s not significantly right but make sense we have more ”non-cognitive’ specialized skills than only-cognitive skills;

    Because IQ tend to correlates reasonably to significantly well [depend the variable] with socio-economic outcomes, it still don’t mean IQ is a PERFECT reflect of intelligence in all its facets.

    IQistics say:

    IQ is not intelligence BUT ”higher IQ people are [invincibly/only] smarter ones”. Even they say ”IQ genius levels” as if everyone who score higher on IQ tests are geniuses by the simple fact they score higher in IQ tests;

    IQ measure intelligence, point;

    Intelligence IS NOT psychological because it is ”cognitive ability”;

    Intelligence varies also in other outcomes BUT only IQ is important;

    Even IQ don’t measure or predict creative nor rational potential, IQ correlates because higher IQ people [higher what*] tend to be more creative and rational;

    Because intelligence is ”cognitive ability-only” and because ”factor g”, so MI don’t make sense [dur].

    Reasonable people understand the value of IQ. IQistics over-value IQ.

    Indeed, in psychology,it’s very common when someone study about ”intelligence”, s/he use only IQ tests already as synonymous of intelligence.

    I already told you that i agree with many of the most polemic statements, namely racial ones, about IQ predictions/correct measurements/correlations. But where IQ tests, IQ-researchers and IQ-aficionados are wrong, you don’t want to know and indeed IQism is a good neo-term to describe them, describe their fails and misunderstood, based exactly in this centric-perspective.

    Bear in mind that already there studies trying to identify ”IQ-genius genes”…. IQistics seems still don’t understand that Terman study proved higher IQ and genius [higher creativity/neo- manipulative perfectionism + higher intelligence] are not the same thing.

    • Replies: @Double Juice JJ
  207. @CanSpeccy

    Sometime perhaps you’ll take the time to explain exactly what you mean by “life success” and show exactly how precisely “life success” is delineated by an IQ test. When you put you mind to such questions, you may find them more vacuous than you had thought.

    Precise definitions can be formulated, but really aren’t necessary.

    Just think of all the people you’ve ever regarded as “highly successful.” What would you estimate their IQ’s to be?

    Have you ever thought of anyone, “This guy is a great success, but my God, what an utter moron!”?

    Telling, isn’t it.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  208. res says:
    @res

    I think it more likely there was an additional error (e.g. that 0.003 coefficient seems surprising small–in this case it only contributes 1.5 points

    I was thinking about this and realized if an extra 0 had been accidentally added after the decimal point for the verbal coefficient then the correct IQ estimate would be:
    For equation 2: (0.095*500) + (0.03*500) + 50.241 = 112.741
    Which seems more reasonable, and if the last zero should have been a 3 we would have:
    For equation 2: (0.095*500) + (0.033*500) + 50.241 = 114.241
    which is almost identical to the equation 1 result.

    Seems like a long shot, but I wonder…

    • Replies: @res
  209. res says:
    @res

    This blog post actually looks more relevant than Frey and Detterman (2004) in terms of having good data to estimate the correlation of IQ with post-1995 SAT:

    https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/on-sat-act-iq-and-other-psychometric-test-correlations/

    There are more interesting data analyses at that blog as well.

    I wish that first plot had the X and Y axes switched since that would allow predicting IQ from SAT. A correlation coefficient would also be nice.

    Compare the number of data points in the blog post plots to figure 1c of http://faculty.tamucc.edu/sfriday/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Psychological-Science-2004-Frey-373-8.pdf
    Also notice that figure 1c indicates they really did intend to have a sub-100 IQ estimate for a post-1995 500/500 SAT score.

    The underlying data is available at https://www.nlsinfo.org/investigator/pages/search.jsp?s=NLSY97
    if anyone is feeling ambitious. Here is some R code to use with NLSY97: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ajdamico/usgsd/master/National%20Longitudinal%20Surveys/longitudinal%20analysis%20examples.R

    • Replies: @res
  210. @Santoculto

    Can someone censor this Santoculto dude? He’s an absolute nuisance

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  211. @utu

    Clearly you do not understand. By definition factor analysis or principal component anaysis seeks orthogonal factors. This means that there is no common factor among the tree because they are orthogonal.

    No, you don’t understand. The leading model of cognitive abilities, the Cattell-Horn-Carroll model uses rotation to oblique simple-structure factors. Otherwise, yes, there could indeed be no second order factors.

    This is very basic. I’ve published in the area, and you really shouldn’t be so arrogant about something you know very little. It’s intellectually dishonest.

    If you don’t know oblique simple structure, you don’t know jackshit.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @res
  212. @RaceRealist88

    So, fitness isn’t a biological concept. (Being a “ranked trait.”)

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  213. @CanSpeccy

    If so, perhaps you would explain how “IQ” tests assess judgement, imagination, wit, and aesthetic sensibility whether artistic, musical or in any of the other of the arts, not to mention other attributes that are considered manifestations of acquired skill, or intelligence.

    You seem to regard “intelligence” as the sum of cognitive abilities. Many commenters seem to take the same view. As Spearman pointed out long ago, intelligence testing looks for common factors, not averages. Intelligence is what is shared by task requiring reasoning. Reasoning is required in all intellectual endeavors and in many nonintellectual endeavors.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  214. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    The chief point of my original comment here was that Intelligence Quotient is a misnomer, since “IQ” tests do not assess much of what we consider to be intelligence. Ken Robinson makes this point nicely in this TED talk, where he points out that IQ test scores and tests of academic achievement take a very one sided view of the human organism, and through their influence on school curricula, adversely impact the lives of many individuals.

    I would add that g, the so-called “general intelligence factor,” must necessarily also be a misnomer since it emerges from an analysis of “IQ” test data.

    What I have also asserted, at the cost of some abuse, is that g cannot explain most of the variation in “IQ” test results, since “IQ” subtests are poorly correlated with one another (around r = < 0.4 on average). The conclusion follows from the fact that if the g loading of every subtest equalled 100%, the correlation among sub-tests would be much higher, in fact it would be equal to 1. In fact, however, there is much unique variation in all of the sub-tests. Therefore, when it is demonstrated that g correlates well with SAT test results or academic achievement, it merely confirms that “IQ” tests measure only some fraction of intellectual abilities, specifically those that correlate well with academic performance as academic performance is today defined.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    , @utu
  215. @CanSpeccy

    It’s good that someone here as a grasp of factor analysis

    You think utu grasps factor analysis … because he or she agrees with you?

    He doesn’t know the first thing about factor analysis other than psych 101 stuff about factors being orthogonal. You can’t discuss factor analysis in relation to g if you don’t even understand how higher order factors are possible.

    I know something about factor analysis. I’ve published in the field repeatedly (if long ago) in peer reviewed journals on the subject of abilities in a factor-analytic context, such a Multivariate Behavioral Research.

    Obviously, Dr. Thompson understands factor analysis. I doubt most commenters do; g is discussed as though it was a matter of taking the largest first order factor in a principal-components analysis.

    • Replies: @res
  216. @CanSpeccy

    The chief point of my original comment here was that Intelligence Quotient is a misnomer, since “IQ” tests do not assess much of what we consider to be intelligence.

    Individual intelligence tests like the WAIS measure considerably more than intelligence. I think their greatest fault is that they try to do too much, this being because they are used both for intelligence measurement and aspects of psycho-neurological assessment. This leaves them vulnerable to criticisms like yours that they don’t measure all abilities and that their correlation with each other is only moderate. Intelligence, if it is anything, is a unified core ability, not an average of all cognitive abilities.

    We disagree on the ordinary language meaning of “intelligence.” I don’t think we ordinarily think of intelligence as the sum of all cognitive abilities. Someone who is very accomplished in some broad field is viewed as intelligent. That he doesn’t have a sense of humor doesn’t diminish his intelligence. Intelligence is correlated with sense of humor; high level wit requires high intelligence, but as a necessary rather than sufficient condition.

    Is intelligence the best predictor of “life success”? I agree with you there that this is pretty meaningless. The best predictor of life success is a multiple regression equation which considers intelligence, other cognitive abilities, motivation, and personality traits. (And this is per R.B. Cattell.) Would IQ tests be predictive of success in a Mad Max world? Even in all other existing cultures?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  217. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    For me the only the-proof-is-in-the-pudding of IQ is in its ability to predict some life outcomes. I am really not interested in theories about how much it is in the genes and so on, etc. All the theorizers seem to be driven by ulterior and hidden motives with the exception of some useful idiots who might be the only honest to god researchers in this field.

    So how well IQ can predict things that matter? It turns out that correlations are not necessarily that high. But the remedy has been found. Every data set is never a complete data set. It does not represent everything that is out there. So the result on the limited data set must be corrected to represent the complete data set. This is called the restricted range correction. So how can you correct for something that you do not have? Obviously it is a form of extrapolation. As always there are infinite number of possible extrapolations. It can be anything. So some assumption have to be made how possible the data may behave outside of the range of data we have. The first assumptions, the most important one, psychometritians made, though they have not spelled it out, that they are interested only in these extrapolations that will increase the correlation. Once they decided on this minor assumption they came up with many many formulas. Apparently not everybody was enthused about it:

    https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/corrections-for-range-restriction-and-attenuation-effects-psychology-essay.php
    Seymour (1988) referred to statistical corrections as “hydraulic”, implying that researchers can achieve a desired result by “pumping up” the corrections. Another reason for reluctance in applying corrections may be because the APA Standards (1974) stated that correlations should not be doubly corrected for attenuation and range restriction. The more current Standards (1985), however, endorse such corrections. A third reason for not using the corrections is that knowledge of unrestricted standard deviations is often lacking (Ree et al., 1994). Finally, researchers may be concerned that in applying corrections to correlation coefficients, they may inadvertently overcorrect.

    Furthermore in some case (this concerns attenuation corrections) the resultant correlation was higher than 1. Correlation greater than 1 was called a phenomenon.

    Psychometricians have offered various explanations for this phenomenon. Before the year ended, Karl Pearson (1904, in his appendix) had declared that any formula that produced correlation coefficients greater than one must have been improperly derived; however, no errors were subsequently found in Spearman’s formula. This led to debate over both how correction for attenuation could result in a correlation greater than one and whether a procedure that often resulted in a correlation greater than one was valid. Many explanations for correction for attenuation’s supposed flaw have been suggested.

    Undeterred by this minor setback, or was it an astounding success exceeding wildest expectations they continue to use the formulas though perhaps more judiciously. Most people in the field have no clue where various formulas and method have come from that they use forced to use on daily basis. They just use them. This brings me to the quote from Nassim Nicholas Taleb I stumbled upon today:

    https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577
    The IYI (Intellectual Yet Idiot)…if social scientist he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general)…

    Anyway, I recommend you read Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance? Ken Richardson and Sarah H. Norgate, Applied Developmental Science (2015).

    I was surprised that Richardson and Norgate seem to give a pass to all those range restriction corrections that significantly increased correlations between IQ and job performances. However they discuss the issue and point out that some parameter change (which has top be assumed, i.e., invented) can significantly influence the magnitude of a corruption.

    P.S. And example of extrapolation/range correction*. Say you want to correlate IQ with brain size. From data you have you get meager r=0.2 but then eureka, you have a bright idea: let’s include a fetus as data point with brain size 0 and IQ=0. And voila, your correlation went way up.

    * The spell checker changed my correction to corruption. It must really be very intelligent spell checker.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  218. utu says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Take it easy man. I am glad you have published something. I hope it’s better than most of the things I read in this field.

    I am approaching this issue from mathematical point of view. I am interested in what is inherently unique and determinate and what is to some extent arbitrary resulting from established methods and procedures that deep down originally were ad hoc and not general. Why particular methods and procedures were established and to what extent generation after generation of psychometricians is being indoctrinated into the craft which guarantees self-consistency while within the craft but w/o a possibility of stepping outside the magic ring drawn by Spearman and few others.

    I am questioning these methods. I am not really interested in names of various types of intelligence and what they do. I am interested in looking at data and see how I can rearrange structures of data and how I can incorporate extra vectors (tests) to produced factorizations contradicting expectations and assumptions.

    Where would be the science of intelligence if god offered different tests to Binet instead of the ones he got?

    And as far as the oblique rotations you should know better that their purpose is just to add extra flexibility (a tweaking tool) and and extra layer of obfuscation (to hide the tweaking). It is a great thing. It sounds very scientific and it helps you get what you want.

  219. @AP

    “Something accounting for up to 1/4 of IQ in the general population is not unimportant.”

    16 percent is the true number (even lower if the .24 correlation is true). I’d say it’s pretty unimportant and leaves rooms for a ton of other variables.

    “So where is “exceptional?

    I don’t contest your statements above, But that’s not what you originally claimed. You claimed that such people could have exceptional IQs.”

    You got me there. Excuse my word choice. People with large chunks of their brains missing can still score above average on IQ tests. The people with TBI prove the point as well.

  220. @Stephen R. Diamond

    “So, fitness isn’t a biological concept. (Being a “ranked trait.”)”

    ‘Fitness’ has a very broad definition. I personally would define ‘fitness’ as Vo2 max. Large variation in what is normal (like with all physiologic traits), etc, but it’s about 50 percent heritable. The variable most responsible for VO2 max is stroke volume. VO2 max can be increased with training, but there is a large variation in what is normal.

  221. utu says:
    @phil

    Furthermore, group differences in performance on tests of cognitive ability given during adolescence can be traced back to differences in performance on IQ tests at ages 3-4

    Are you serious? The same people who claim this also say that at age 5 IQ heritability is 20% and once they become adult it is 80%. It must be that somehow two different trajectories predict the same future. So which of the two twins predict the future if their trajectories are so far apart at young age?

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @res
  222. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I am not sure if I understand what you want to hear from me.

    If you have N tests T1, T2,… that produce correlation matrix A from which you get N factors F1, F2,… then all N factors contain all the information all tests contain. However according to Spearman whim and wishes we ignore all factors but one, say g=F1, which is the “strongest”. Now, obviously g cannot explain all tests T because the information is not there but if F2, F3,… are really weak then g can explain a significant amount of that information.

    How to understand what g is and how to interpret it? Say you do a factor analysis of three variables: shoe size, height and weight and get your g, i.e, the dominant factor, from it. Give me the interpretation of it. Now keep adding new variable like blood pressure and hepatitis. There will be a dominant g. How should we call it?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  223. @silviosilver

    Precise definitions can be formulated, but really aren’t necessary.

    yessss

    Do you know ”we” start to analyze stuff from definitions isn’t*

    Because there are different applications to the word ”success” this doesn’t mean precise definitions will be futile to this task.

  224. @utu

    ”Heritability” reflect levels of developmental stability. Because child/and teen brain is growing in ”insane speed” happen higher variation during this first twenty decades of human life, even among identical twins.

    What people call ”heritability” among identical twins in the truth mean: how mutually symmetrical they are in their respective developments.

    The ”genotype” here is this ratio between identical twins.

  225. res says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    g is discussed as though it was a matter of taking the largest first order factor in a principal-components analysis.

    I confess to doing this. My background is in engineering (including linear algebra) so I am much more familiar with PCA (I have noted this before). I do understand the idea of non-orthogonal factors being possible, but from my point of view this seems more likely to obfuscate things than to clarify them (though I do understand the desirability of having factors which represent common sense ideas like math and verbal even if they are not orthogonal). It is worth noting that the primary component from PCA will have the largest possible variance explained by any factor. PCA also has the desirable characteristic of being able to determine the % variance explained of all the factors by simply summing the % variance explained of each component used.

    Can you please give a brief explanation of how this simplified view of g is incorrect? And/or point to a good brief reference discussing this? To be clear, I know the subfactors in some popular decompositions of g are not orthogonal, but what about g itself?

    I wish more people knowledgeable in the literature and techniques of the intelligence research field would comment here, and I appreciate knowing backgrounds. Contrary to some protestations seen here about “appeals to authority”, I think it is helpful to have an idea of the knowledge base and experience (formally acquired or not) of various commenters.

    Please comment here more. And if you can, please try to include references (including technique primers) to help those of us who are less knowledgeable in some aspects of the field.

  226. res says:
    @utu

    Reading comprehension is important, and if I read phil correctly the critical word is “group” (hopefully he will clarify). Looking at groups smooths out statistical noise a great deal. Though I think it is worth noting one has to be careful of systematic differences between groups (e.g. in rate of maturation) which might interfere.

    phil, can you give a reference for the claim utu questioned? I was unable to find it with a search and it would be interesting to take a look.

    • Replies: @utu
  227. res says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    If you don’t know oblique simple structure

    Can you give a good reference for learning about oblique simple structure? This paper has one of the better overviews I saw (note the journal ; ): Gilbert Atkinson & Clifford E. Lunneborg (1968) Comparison Of Oblique And Orthogonal Simple Structure Solutions For Personality And Interest Factors, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 3:1, 21-35
    But this seems like a topic better learned from a textbook.

    I don’t know how much interdisciplinary work you have done, but this seems like a classic example of different techniques and terminology being used for similar purposes. I think an expert in factor analysis should be able to explain things in a way someone versed in PCA would understand.

    • Replies: @utu
  228. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    You seem to regard “intelligence” as the sum of cognitive abilities.

    In what way do I “seem to regard ‘intelligence’ as the sum of cognitive abilities.” Nowhere to I say that, neither do I think it.

    My chief point, already twice stated, is that “IQ” tests do not measure most of the attributes that constitute aspects of intelligence as that word is used in common speech and as it is defined by dictionaries.

    Intelligence is what is shared by task requiring reasoning.

    Psychologists impose on the public by claiming to measure intelligence when they are measuring only some highly restricted aspect of what constitutes intelligence as that term is generally understood. Reasoning is a manifestation of intelligence, so is playing the violin, which is not an exercise in reasoning, but is still the manifestation of an acquired skill, i.e., a manifestation of intelligence.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @utu
  229. res says:
    @res

    This earlier post at that blog has some additional plots of NLSY97 intelligence related data: https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/iq-test-scores-gpa-income-and-related-correlations-from-nlsy97/

    One that particular caught my eye looked at ASVAB percentiles vs. SAT composite, both plotted as binned means:
    The relationship is quite linear from 600 SAT/ 22% ASVAB up to 1100 SAT / 80% ASVAB, but above that the SAT has considerably more resolving power. To my mind that calls into question the idea of using the ASVAB to evaluate higher end IQs. Per this site: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx a post-1995 1100 is an IQ of roughly 116. And keep in mind this is the post-1995 SAT which has substantially less ceiling than pre-1995.

    Another fun plot is Income by SAT verbal:
    It shows the highest incomes at around 575 with a fairly steep downturn at higher scores. Fascinating.
    Math is more intuitive, but has an interesting knee above about 525:
    It also has a higher peak than for verbal.

    The blogger really likes the ASVAB though (and he looks data savvy enough that I take his comments seriously):

    The ASVAB is by far the best cognitive measure here since it is a decent test and it was administered to the vast majority of respondents (not true with the other tests here)! The reported SAT and ACT scores, for instance, suffer from both range restriction and self-selection issues, even though the tests are very well correlated with ASVAB. Nevertheless, I am including these other tests for completeness….

    The “IQ/test score by educational attainment level” and “Mean IQ by race, ethnicity, religion, etc” sections have some interesting plots.

    And “(big) Scatterplot matrices” is a gold mine for those who like correlations, distribution histograms, and regression lines.

    • Replies: @res
  230. If IQ really measure the most important functions of intelligence, MOST/90% of higher IQ people would be the first ones to perceive macro-dangers as currently is happening in Western hemisphere, BUT NOT, it’s otherwise…

    Rednecks grasp firstly and in reasonably precise way most of major problems that affect and REALLY threat us while most of so-called higher IQ ones are thinking about the sex of angels or distracted with excessively sophisticated or confused theories to explain patterns that can be find in the front of our noses.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  231. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    My chief point is that I’ve scored badly on IQ tests but no one has measured my singing voice to compensate…

    Clearly.

    • Replies: @res
  232. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Double Juice JJ

    Can someone censor this Santoculto dude? He’s an absolute nuisance

    Well at least he’s polite, which is more than one can say of some others.

    True his English is at times egregious, but if people would take the trouble to kindly correct this or that error, he would, in time, be able to contribute in a more clear and concise way.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @res
  233. res says:
    @Anonymous

    Actually, as on-target as that sort of insult might be in most examples of this type of conversation, it is clearly not the case for CanSpeccy if you have followed his comments. I just wish he would bring more of that intellect to bear on engaging in the substantive parts of the “intelligent debate” he advocates in comment 105.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @CanSpeccy
  234. utu says:
    @res

    Yes. I realized it after posting the comment. I do not know what group does mean.

  235. res says:
    @res

    To my mind that calls into question the idea of using the ASVAB to evaluate higher end IQs.

    I thought about this more and realized it is completely wrong. The problem is I did not account for the y axis being percentiles and the x axis being raw scores. The blog post I linked further above compares the post-1995 SAT and an IQ conversion for the ASVAB which has a ceiling of 145: https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/on-sat-act-iq-and-other-psychometric-test-correlations/

    Does anyone have a cookbook reference for converting ASVAB scores to IQ? Frey and Detterman (2004) states:

    A principal-axis factor analysis was performed on the 10 subtests of the ASVAB in order to derive a measure of g. This analysis included 11,878 of the 11,914 subjects who had taken the ASVAB. The remaining 36 subjects were excluded because they were missing scores for 1 or more subtests. ASVAB scores were chosen in place of scores on some of the more traditional intelligence tests because ASVAB scores were available for nearly all of the NLSY79 participants (11,878 of 12,686). Furthermore, prior analysis of the ASVAB confirmed a hierarchical g model in which 64% of the variance in the ASVAB was due to a general factor (Ree & Carretta, 1994; see Roberts et al., 2000, for an alternative model). Results of the factor analysis of the ASVAB are shown in Table 1. They indicate a substantial loading of all subtests of the ASVAB on a first factor, g.
    ASVAB first-factor scores were transformed to an IQ scale using the following equation: IQ = (z  * 15) + 100. Finally, the IQ scores derived from the ASVAB were correlated with SAT scores for the 917 respondents who had scores on both measures. Simple correlations between both SAT scores and ASVAB IQ scores and scores on the small-N intelligence tests were also analyzed.

    But that does not give enough information to calculate their z score.

    • Replies: @utu
  236. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    We disagree on the ordinary language meaning of “intelligence.”

    How is that possible?

    The dictionary defines the term as the ability to acquire knowledge and skills, or more broadly as understanding and sagacity, which implies judgement, which is not the same as reasoning power.

    That is how I define intelligence, although I accept Albert Einstein’s extension of the term to include imagination. So if we disagree, that is because you (psychologists) define intelligence in a way that does not correspond with the generally accepted meaning of the term. That is why I say that the “IQ” testing business is an imposition on the public. It is based on a deception, intended or otherwise.

    I don’t think we ordinarily think of intelligence as the sum of all cognitive abilities.

    In saying that, you are asserting what needs to be demonstrates if it can be — which I deny, that intelligence is some unitary feature of the mind, brain, or central nervous system.

    Intelligence as I and dictionaries define it is multi-faceted. It may entail reason, but not necessarily. Moreover it can entail much else beside reason. That is why I think the concept of general intelligence is bunk. Intelligence as generally understood covers many facets of CNS function. That means it invokes many different CNS systems, giving rise to real, not error, variation among “IQ” subtest results.

    Intelligence is correlated with sense of humor

    That I believe remains to be scientifically demonstrated. May be “IQ” tests should include a joke section. At least it would make test taking more fun.

    high level wit requires high intelligence, but as a necessary rather than sufficient condition.

    Ha! so intelligence is not solely a matter of reasoning power. The trick now is to figure out how to measure the other part!

  237. @CanSpeccy

    Me, polite**

    kkkRealist and Rest have different opinions!!

    In the end, this troll J&J [he wrote only comment, this] is partially to predominantly right, everyone is, most part of time partial to predominantly right about everything.

    I hope my last [short] comments be more understandable.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  238. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Well at least he’s polite

    Look, I don’t think censoring Santoculto would be appropriate, but I would hardly call him polite. Do you want me to dig up example comments? Then there was the comment that was redacted (the only example of this I have seen on this blog).

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  239. utu says:
    @res

    When I read it I assumed that z is g normalized to Mean=0 and SD=1. I would think this is a standard procedure of converting scores of any test into IQ scale. This however may not work well if the sample you have is not representative of all population.

    • Replies: @res
  240. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    I am really not interested in theories about how much it is in the genes and so on, etc. All the theorizers seem to be driven by ulterior and hidden motives with the exception of some useful idiots who might be the only honest to god researchers in this field.

    The chief desire seems to be to prove that intelligence is almost entirely genetically determined. That way, IQ tests establish an aristocracy of merit, and justify relegating the unintelligent to second-to-tenth-rate schools, serving in the front ranks of the military, competing with cheap immigrant labor, etc., while the upper classes arrange for their own kids to receive the environmental enrichment that ensures they score high on IQ test for admission to Harvard, etc.

    However, if one throws out the research of dubious integrity by people like the late Sir Cyril Burt, President of the British Psychological Society, there seems plenty of evidence to show that performance on any task identifiably intelligent can be improved, in many cases immensely, by suitable education, training or environmental conditions. That fact, should be central to any educational policy.

    Most people in the field have no clue where various formulas and method have come from that they use forced to use on daily basis. They just use them.

    Yes, a Web search for “factor analysis” yields a first page of links to software packages.

    But if anyone wants a quick intro, here’s a link to a short video that gives what I take to be a good overview.

    I do like the restricted range correction — could be real handy, though your real range extension of the type you propose may be easier to apply.

  241. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Now keep adding new variable like blood pressure and hepatitis. There will be a dominant g. How should we call it?

    LOL

    But I guess if one sticks with a sensible collection of likely related variables, e.g., all “IQ” sub-tests involving some sort of reasoning, we might find one strong factor relating results of all tests. Then we might ask what underlies that factor. In the case of g, this could only be, so it seems to me, a property of the neural substrate upon which all the test solving activities depend. Jensen, proposed that g reflected “processing speed.” That might be right. But the fly in the ointment for the IQ-ists who hold intelligence to be almost wholly genetically determined is that the properties of the neural substrate are, like every other property of the organism, a product of a gene by environment interaction. Hence, according to Linus Pauling, you can up your IQ, i.e., “processing speed” with a spoonful of d-aspartate. And no doubt in many other ways too.

  242. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @res

    Maybe. I really don’t care. He might be like Fred Reed – a clearly intelligent person – who can’t untangle his personal emotional attachments from the facts.

    - Yes – an individual’s “worth” is not limited to their IQ.

    - No – You can’t import a million 80 IQ individuals and expect positive results. Most of them will fail in the first world and become a permanent, hereditary, resentful, slum-inhabiting, criminal (and/or Jihadi) underclass.

    • Agree: res
  243. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “intelligence” as the sum of cognitive abilities

    You brought up the issue that math and verbal scores correlated weakly (≈0.5) and later res cited results where g was correlated with SAT at level of 0.8. I do not go into what intelligence is but how IQ or g work mathematically and why they correlates well with SAT and its subtests.

    If you have two variable X and Y with a mutual correlation of r=0.5 the question is how to construct a new variable that will maximize correlation with both of these variables may be posed. Let’s take for example Z=X+Y. If I did not make a mistake in my calculations, correlations r(X,Z)= r(Y,Z)= 1.5/sqrt(3)=0.86.

    The g is a linear combination (weighted sum) of subtests from the battery of test. Thus one can say that g as a measure of “intelligence” is indeed a sum of cognitive abilities.

    By knowing Z we know less than by knowing values of X and Y separately. There is more information in vector (X,Y) than in scalar Z=X+Y. Spearman and his epigones by chasing the dream of reductionism rather have Z than (X,Y). Perhaps also because it will take less space as a tattoo on your forehead in the New Brave World.

  244. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Re: Anonymous

    Thank you for saying that. It always seems pointless to reply to such slights, but I’m sure it’s always appreciated if someone else offers some balance.

    As for engaging in the substantive parts of the debate, I guess I try, but I am approaching things, from a psychologist’s perspective, at an oblique angle. I don’t know much about the subject although I’ve read a some of the the pop psych literature produced in the last 50 years. My interest is in two different aspects of the debate: it’s political and its biological implications.

    The political implications, including implications for the ordering of society, the application of educational resources, etc. are vast. Therefore, it is of great importance that what psychology reveals is accurately represented to the public. If judging such matters requires grappling with things such as factor analysis, then I’m prepared to spend at least a fifteen minutes on the Web trying to figure it out. However, I will never seek to engage with you or anyone else on the technicalities, happy though I am to see that utu, who shares some of my skepticism about the uses psychology, has mathematical skills to engage with you.

    As a biologist, I see intelligence as simply the adaptiveness of behaviour, including thought, mediated by the central nervous system. As such, I want to know what factors, both genetic and environmental, shape that behavior and how those influences are mediated via impacts physiology or anatomy.

    • Replies: @res
  245. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    but I would hardly call him polite.

    Oh, alright. I guess I missed his more ill-mannered comments, the existence of which he seems to acknowledge. But anyhow we are agree on Santoculto’s first amendment right.

  246. @Santoculto

    >can’t discredit arguments

    >try to discredit character with baseless claims

    Just like a leftist… Are you a leftist?

    Arguments matter. Numbers at the end of a pseudonym do not.

  247. utu says:
    @res

    I am in a similar situation searching for a good tutorial on higher order factorial analysis. From what I know, however, I have already formed some opinions and not positive ones as you could guess but I am open to be persuaded that I am wrong.

    You can check this article: John Carroll’s Views on Intelligence: Bi-Factor vs. Higher-Order Models, A. Alexander Beaujean, J. Intell. 2015, 3, 121-136

    and note this:

    Those interested in studying g typically did so using the first unrotated factor from an exploratory factor analysis (or the simpler principal components analysis) or used a higher-order factor analysis. Those who still wished to use a bi-factor model to conceptualize cognitive ability were primarily relegated to either using confirmatory factor analysis or approximating a bi-factor model using the SLT of a higher-order model [59

    From this I gather that you and I are not wrong thinking in terms of PCA, eigenvectors and so on.

    • Replies: @res
  248. @CanSpeccy

    Thank you. I already read. I disagree in some aspects with this author. He seems dichotomize very important moral actualizations with imprescindible priorities. For example, be more aware about the origins of what you buy as well about what you eat and if you can self actualize.

    In the end, the % of higher IQ people who fall in love for incorrect but sophisticated theories namely those that are related with very important issues seems so high that maybe there is something very wrong with IQ tests…but not.

    At least myself I just try to give correct relevance IQ deserve.

    IQistics give exaggerated relevance to IQ precision to reflect intelligence and while something goes wrong they try to rationalize this incongruences, this example I used.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @Santoculto
  249. @CanSpeccy

    But sorry I think you’re slight like that. None is perfect, we no have all answers for everything but we must need start well and you act like a typical leftist when you debate about IQ and intelligence issues.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  250. phil says:
    @res

    res,

    Sorry for the late reply; I try to have a life outside of blogs. The Heckman article you cite is relevant, but a better one for the gist of this comments section is:

    Pedro Carneiro, James J. Heckman, and Dimitriy V. Masterov “Labor Market Discrimination and Racial Differences in Premarket Factors” (eaasily found on the web), where Heckman improves on the now-common estimates among labor economists that, once cognitive ability is considered, many of the differences in labor market earnings that are attributed to racial discrimination melt away. He makes adjustments for differences in school quality. He is a master (Nobel Laureate) of regression analysis and related statistical methods. It is unfortunately the case that psychologists tend to rely on correlations even when better analytical tools are available.

    Intelligence research is important, but the people doing it are, for the most part, not that great. Moreover, the mass media ignore or distort research findings.

    With respect to The Bell Curve, Heckman continues to emphasize that personality factors are very important, sometimes more important than differences in cognitive ability. I note that, in the article cited above, he discusses sizable personality differences between blacks and whites that are already evident at an early age. He also discusses the “home environment,” as if this is simply a given, but as Plomin has stressed, what is called the “home environment” may be significantly influenced by genes that the children share with the parents. Unintelligent, impulsive, and extroverted people result in a different social environment than the one likely to result from people who are smart and reserved.

    • Replies: @res
  251. EH says:

    This thread, like Bowman in 2001 approaching the monolith of stupidity, makes me marvel: “My God! It’s full of ‘tards”.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  252. @res

    “Right, but if there are multiple exercises possible which should be used as a basis for comparing “biceps strength”? Is one exercise “better” than another for that purpose?”

    Standing barbell curl would be a good measure. The Big Three (squat, bench press and deadlift) are even better. Then you run into the problem of somatypes; different somas are more conducive for different lifts so I would sort by somatype as well. To attempt to test bicep strength on its own, a single-arm curl on a preacher bench would be apt. But biceps’ strength is low so Big Three would be better. Point is, it’s relatively simple to test and compare individuals strength/strength gains.

    “In terms of what I meant, how to compare a steeper loss at high frequencies vs. a shallow loss starting at low frequencies (curves crossing)?”

    I honestly can’t answer this because I don’t know anything about it. Let me do some reading on this.

    “Pareto dominance is a very useful concept for talking about comparisons when there are multiple orthogonal variables which can be ranked independently.”

    Thanks for the explanation. I must have only seen ‘Pareto’ and assume it was the Principle. Apologies.

    How would this factor into strength comparisons? One person would have higher strength in a certain exercise through the entire range of strength>

    “Is “normal” “optimal”?”

    I would say that ‘normal’ is ‘average’ and therefore ‘optimal’. I’m open to counters to that though.

    “Are there no variables where more (or less) is always better (all else being equal)?”

    Higher Vo2 max would be ‘always better’ than lower.

    In a survival situation, higher VO2 max would be ‘better’ than lower. People with a higher Vo2 max had a 21 percent lower chance in acquiring CVD (which I’ll get into more below). However numerous other lifestyle factors affect this variable other than exercise. Individuals with better CRF had lower all-cause mortality.

    http://www.academia.edu/22868568/Cardiorespiratory_Fitness_as_a_Quantitative_Predictor_of_All-Cause_Mortality_and_Cardiovascular_Events_in_Healthy_Men_and_Women

    Of course having a higher VO2 max is what we are supposed to have. Our evolutionary novel environments have caused too many deadly diseases, a lot of which have caused all of the diseases of civilization (which are low to non-existent in hunter-gatherer populations, see Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes for more information). It falls back on the sedentary lifestyle with a bad diet as a whole; not just one variable. Because the whole system needs to be looked at.

    There is a large range in VO2 max in the general population, and people lead long healthy lives in spite of a lower VO2 max due to other reasons. Our evolutionary novel environments are why this occurs.

    “Individual Pareto dominance should be unlikely in the real world, and in particular I think it is clear that our continental races do not have a Pareto dominant relationship between any two races. (rereading that I actually think we should include it is a key belief of HBD based race realism, it makes clear that “race realism” differs from “racism” and “superiority” is not a meaningful universal concept)”

    I like this. It’s obviously because each race is adapted for their ancestral environment.

    “It seems only sensible that having evolved in different environments the different races are each likely to be optimal in some real senses within their own respective environments (though worth noting the possibility of the ability to create and effectively use advanced technology perhaps changing this equation after we start modifying our environment).”

    I agree. Which evolutionary factors do you believe would impede from using advanced technology?

    “Metabolic cost and other trade-offs within our range of genetic possibilities (e.g torsion dystonia risk).”

    Are you saying that people with higher IQs burn more kcal?

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-calories/

    Any refs for high IQ/torsion dystonia risk/metabolic trade-offs (which I assume would be kcal used to power the brain)?

    “Possible alienation from not being able to relate well to the “normal.””

    How would that trade-off work be ‘good’? We evolved as social beings and so ‘possible alienation from not being able to relate well to the “normal”‘ would not be in our evolutionary favor.

    How about the cost of higher IQ people not having children? I’ve always considered a bio explanation, but have recently been thinking that as places modernize, there is ‘too much to do’ which would decrease birth rates as well. Lower testosterone due to rising obesity rates which also coincides with falling sperm counts (in my opinion; there is a long debate on the subject) has to do with it as well.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/15/the-wests-testosterone-decline/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/27/the-wests-sperm-decline-is-it-true/

    Intelligence is positively correlated (though low) with semen quality: sperm motility, log sperm concentration and sperm count:

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a1a9/b86aaf8c2252963787e53315ab3fc2b4f5f3.pdf

    Yet higher IQ people don’t have more children than lower IQ people. That may be a small part (very small) of the sperm decrease. Any idea if high IQ people (say 2 SDs) have lower testosterone? Logic dictates no because higher IQ people have higher SES and thus better access to better food and they exercise more. I cannot find a specific study on this one point, maybe you know one.

    I don’t deny the usefulness of high IQ (whatever it means/tests). I wouldn’t want to live in a society where the average IQ was, say, 2 SDs, though.

    “Then there is the what is currently normal issue. Presumably humans evolved in a way to optimally balance metabolism and energy storage. However, the environment we evolved in is very different from our current environment. Thus IMHO the typical BMI in the US is not optimal, but those survival curves make a case for “optimal” BMI being higher than our quoted normal ranges indicate.”

    The BMI with the lowest mortality has risen to around 27; BMI isn’t a good predictor of mortality.

    http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2520627

    Even then, higher mortality rates only are seen beginning at 30 BMI if I recall correctly. Fat people who eat well, exercise and practice mindful eating will have no higher risk of death than their lower BMI counterparts.

    But these higher BMIs are caused by our modern day societies. Height has risen in the first-world, and so have obesity rates. As third-world countries modernize, they will get taller and fatter as well. I don’t think you can even separate the two.

    “All of that said, I am not sure how I feel about the philosophical issue posed overall. But I do think it is reasonable to posit that one end of the normal range is better than the other. As an example, with IQ I think being +2SD is clearly better than being average, which is clearly better than being -2SD.””

    I disagree on a group level but don’t on the individual level.

    The end of the normal range here would be IQ 115 though. In regards to health, I’m positive that lifestyle factors are more important than intelligence.

    “This does not say the ordering applies to anything other than IQ and the resulting ability to perform certain tasks (and depending on the task a sufficiently good or bad set of other traits might be more important than IQ in that case).”

    I agree here but that’s for another conversation, we could have a good one there.

    “Agreed. There is a great deal of complexity here which makes interpretation less than clear cut, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We can still draw meaningful conclusions (just as with IQ). It can be meaningful to say both “A is stronger than B” and “because of that A is better than B in that respect.” I can have a higher vertical leap than someone which means just that. What other inferences can be drawn are where the problems come in.”

    Agreed.

    The mortality rate for individuals over age 50 began to increase in a stepwise fashion with increasing DBP levels of over 90. However, adjusting for SBP made the relationship disappear. For individuals over 50, the mortality rate began to significantly increase at a SBP ≥140 independent of DBP. In individuals ≤50 years of age, the situation was reversed; DBP was the more important predictor of mortality. Using these data to redefine a normal blood pressure as one that does not confer an increased mortality risk would reduce the number of American adults currently labeled as abnormal by about 100 million.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3138604/

    Variation in BP (like, say, 120 SBP to 140 SBP) is ‘normal’. I believe even around 110 for SBP is within that range, need to check my books. For DPB between 75 and 90 is within normal diurnal fluctuations due to activity/eating/etc. BP, like testosterone, is one of those tricky variables to measure and so must be measured upon waking to see if there are any problems. The above paper argues for raising the ‘normal’ range.

    There is also a 5 to 10 percent variation in serum cholesterol levels in the general population.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC299050/

    Blood lipid levels also increase in the winter. These traits have a wide range due to how our systems interact with the environment.

    “This one is interesting. The quartile with the highest mortality risk actually includes the lower end of the “normal” BMI range (18.5 – 21.55)”

    In regards to COPD, yes this is true. People with a higher BMI do live longer. But in the general population, people with a higher BMI live longer (BMI 27, see above) which also lends credence to the so-called ‘obesity paradox’ (which, in my opinion, is not a ‘paradox’ at all). Lifestyle factors play the largest part in all-cause mortality.

    “IMHO your “only notice something wrong when they fall outside the range” is overly simplistic. Though useful (good) in a “perfect is the enemy of the good sense.” Your simplification is useful for conveying concepts to non-experts. Just don’t confuse it with reality.”

    I don’t think so. It is reality. Every body is different—both anatomically and physiologically—and so different things work for different people and different people with differing values can live long and healthy lives.

    “P.S. If I had to offer a definition of “IQ-ist” it would be confusing the model/measure (IQ) with the reality (intelligence). I sincerely believe the people advocating IQ here do not meet that definition, but I would be interested in specific evidence to the contrary.”

    I agree. Putting everything into one variable makes no sense.

    As usual, thanks for the good conversation.

    • Replies: @res
    , @res
  253. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @EH

    Everyone here is a tard.

    EH is here.

    Therefore, EH is a tard.

    I trust that I will be awarded a couple of IQ points for that syllogism, which is not only irrefutable, but quite possibly what Santoculto would call imprescindible.

  254. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    I think you’re slight like that

    Like what? and what do you mean by “slight”?

    we no have all answers to every thing.

    You mean “we do not have the answers to everything.” That’s if you really need to state the obvi0us.

    but we must need start well

    You mean ” We need to start well.” But then what, in the context, does that mean? Start what well?

    you act like a typical leftist when you debate about IQ and intelligence issues

    Oh, yeah. In what way? If it matters.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  255. @Santoculto

    ”Higher IQ pepo/invincibly smarter ones” no have ”common sense”.

    One of the most popular excuse to explain why at priori a smarter person believe in nonsense, many them that are pretty easy to perceive at naked eyes. So-called ”causality or correlation”, seems many higher IQ people have troubles with this.

  256. @Santoculto

    He seems dichotomize very important moral actualizations with imprescindible priorities. For example, be more aware about the origins of what you buy as well about what you eat and if you can self actualize.

    Partially explained.

    Self actualization

    : what you wear and what eat matter. Maybe you are helping a extremely unethical [euphemism to something worse] enterprise that exploit the work in third world countries.

    Yesssssssssssssssssss,
    Loved ”humans” are killing per years billion of nonhuman animals to eat. Humans become a malignant cancer. ”We’ are devouring this planet as ”clever-silly-beasts and bitches” we are.

    Imprescindible priorities

    : dependent on context but usually strongly connected with our own survive. Defend INDISCRIMINATELY open border policy is WRONG, DANGEROUS namely at long term for EVERYONE, it’s will increase racism, homophobia, mysogyny [yyyyy], misantropy, whatever potentially nasty feelings…

    ”Egaliterian” doctrine is trying to kill free speech, LOGIC [extremely important for all of us] or real understanding of some very fundamental issues, it’s just wrong, manipulative [dominated by psychopaths and very weirdly naive creatures].

    One thing don’t dispute with other, both, self actualization and first priorities, are very relevant.

  257. @CanSpeccy

    You are anti-IQ, not totally different than to be super-pro-IQ aka IQist. Just like a feminist and a machist, both extremists [it's not always that extremism will be wrong, period].

    IQ measure size of our semantic memory, namely on crystallized tests/verbal subtests. Only this is enough to conclude ”IQ measure something very important facet of intelligence”. I know and i agree absolutely with you that it’s not enough. Damn!! IQ don’t measure creativity. Everything we have it’s was thanks human creativity. It’s a shame or must be, should be a shame that IQ treat creativity in that so negligible ways.

    But about analytical////fluid skills, IQ tend to be more circular.

    For example: vocabulary [semantic memory] and verbal analogies [very shy analysis of our analytical skills].

    IQ measure or follow the development of our brains during throughout life and how or how much they internalize new informations. It’s predominantly a crystalized tests.

    And real reasoning is in the real world, even IQ developers may can improve this parts, if they will detect this faults [if this is a real fault].

    People forget that intelligence is too under selective pressure, what i mean, selective pressure is for SOMETHING, for some specific tasks in given environment to survive. Human civilization is possible thanks increase of self-domestication. So, Most of the psychological traits are becoming progressively tied to the intergenerational effects of human self-domestication.

    People may think that human intelligence is a golden standard about what is intelligence. Maybe, partially speaking they are very right, if we are the smartest species, but, because self-domestication, what we understand as intelligence is tendentiously becoming ALSO what we understand as domestication. It’s not ”pure concept” of what intelligence is.

    whatever…

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  258. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Santoculto

    Fuck off, Santoculto. I’m pro-IQ but your desperate attempts to rub your skin against the smarter people is getting annoying.

    But they’re taking a chance, he said. Bastards told
    us they wanted to isolate Hiroshi, keep him away from
    their central research thrust. Balls. Bet your ass there’s
    some kind of power struggle going on in Hosaka
    research. Somebody big’s flying his favorites in and
    rubbing them all over Hiroshi for luck
    . When Hiroshi
    shoots the legs out from under genetic engineering, the
    Medina crowd’s going to be ready.

    William Gibson – Burning Chrome

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  259. res says:
    @utu

    That sounds right, but what I want to know is how to convert the subtest scores into an IQ estimate. Ideally in the same way as the researchers (and the blog post I linked? maybe I should ask there) do. I could pull out the first component myself if I had the data, but unless I managed to use exactly the same subjects there might be subtle differences. Consistency is good when trying to compare work with others.

  260. @Anonymous

    What i said too much*

    I can’t visualize…

    Yes, IQ is a BUSINESS and a lot of fragile snowflawkes that invest all your ”intellectual reputation” in this contest become very angry when someone JUST SAY what it’s necessary to say…

    PERIOD.

    And, this people tend to prove all my points,

    they can’t think FOR THEMSELVES….

    Angry is not a good argument, try again, but with INTELLIGENCE.

    AND, quotes of famous people don’t impress me.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  261. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Thank you for saying that. It always seems pointless to reply to such slights, but I’m sure it’s always appreciated if someone else offers some balance.

    One of the reasons I occasionally “meddle” like that is I think it means more coming from a third party. It does tend to make some people unhappy though.

    As for engaging in the substantive parts of the debate, I guess I try, but I am approaching things, from a psychologist’s perspective, at an oblique angle.

    I think part of our disconnect is that my abilities tilt more towards math (while being pretty balanced compared to what I usually see in other engineers) while I think you tilt more towards verbal. Like many people these tendencies have probably been exacerbated by our training and chosen careers. We have very different ways of engaging with problems and constructing/evaluating arguments.

    I think we both also have a cranky and outspoken side which can be fun in the right circumstances but gets ugly sometimes.

    Thanks for mentioning your biology background (with an emphasis on physiology based on other comments IIRC?).

    I for one would be happy for more discussion relating Dr. Thompson’s posts to their political implications. I think there would need to be more discussion of underlying assumptions and fleshing out of arguments for any two commenters here to be mutually intelligible on that though. Anonymous’s comment 249 trends in this direction. I’m curious, do you agree with his two Yes/No assertions there?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  262. res says:
    @utu

    From this I gather that you and I are not wrong thinking in terms of PCA, eigenvectors and so on.

    I would not be surprised if I have said something wrong based on that (hopefully I am mostly on target though). Working cross-disciplines can be hard because of the differences in terminology and techniques. It is good to to have some humility when venturing into someone else’s field. I think of it as being akin to rude tourists going on about how the locals are doing things incorrectly. It is important to make an effort to understand first. The locals may actually be wrong, but commenting on it won’t do much good unless you both understand where they are coming from and can communicate in their language (more manner of speaking and understanding of underlying assumptions than literal language IMHO).

    • Replies: @utu
  263. @Santoculto

    “Angry is not a good argument, try again, but with INTELLIGENCE.”

    Haha. This is gold coming from you. You don’t even know what an argument is.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  264. res says:
    @phil

    Thanks! I found two versions of Carneiro et al. They look to have the same content, but the 2005 journal version has figures inline which should be easier to read while the 2003 working paper has full page figures at the end which is probably better for anyone wanting to reuse them. The paper will take a little while to read and I probably can’t get to it over the weekend.

    With respect to The Bell Curve, Heckman continues to emphasize that personality factors are very important, sometimes more important than differences in cognitive ability. I note that, in the article cited above, he discusses sizable personality differences between blacks and whites that are already evident at an early age. He also discusses the “home environment,” as if this is simply a given, but as Plomin has stressed, what is called the “home environment” may be significantly influenced by genes that the children share with the parents. Unintelligent, impulsive, and extroverted people result in a different social environment than the one likely to result from people who are smart and reserved.

    I find it hard to tell when people are sincere about their emphasis on the importance of factors other than IQ and when they are giving a selective account of their idea of reality to avoid the PC Komissars (this is frustrating). Do you know of any good references discussing the relative importance of genetics in home environments and personality factors?

    • Replies: @phil
  265. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Lots of interesting things to respond to. Tired now and busy tomorrow, but I will try to reply later.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  266. @RaceRealist88

    [Too many vacuous comments, many of them exhibiting poor English usage. You should put time and thought into your comments if you want them published.]

  267. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    Anonymous’s comment 249 trends in this direction. I’m curious, do you agree with his two Yes/No assertions there?

    His yes, yes.

    His no, no!

    Much more important than an immigrant’s IQ in determining their future in the West is, I suspect, their social background. If someone with an IQ of 80 is, nevertheless, from the more successful and presumably more intelligent (higher IQ) half of the population from which they are drawn, their prospects in the West are good, since they must be from a society where the Flynn effect is not working for the people, but it probably will for the migrants to a Western environment.

    Moreover, simply because they are migrants, you can expect them to be among the more energetic and ambitious element of their native population, so they should adapt and scramble to climb the ladder wherever they go. This is in fact what seems to have happened with Nigerians and other Africans in Britain, where the second generation do quite well in school despite the fact that an IQ of 80 among the original population is relatively high. And of course there are now lots of Africans and other Third Worlders in Britain who sit in Parliament, hold important public posts, e.g., chair of the Race Relations Board, and generally put the native Brits in their place.

    But Ron Unz has a good perspective on this having looked closely at the data and drawn what I take to be sound conclusions, e.g., his Race, IQ and Wealth documents the lack of stability of IQ in migrant populations.

    But the more successful the immigrants the worse it is for the West. The British are already on track to become minority in their own homeland by 2060. So if the immigrants are bright as well as numerous, it will be the native Brits who become the hewers of wood and the drawers of water in the service of a dominant alien population.

  268. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    But the more successful the immigrants the worse it is for the West. The British are already on track to become minority in their own homeland by 2060. So if the immigrants are bright as well as numerous, it will be the native Brits who become the hewers of wood and the drawers of water in the service of a dominant alien population.

    Wow! Thanks for clearing that up. I’m sure the natives will gladly submit to your superiority.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  269. @res

    Another thing I’d like to discuss is our gut microbiota’s effect on our brain, behavior and intelligence. There’s been some good advances in that discipline in the last couple of years. The human microbiome project was completed a few years back too so we’re beginning to understand the full effects of microbiota on our behavior. I’d like to see psychologists look at this too, because it’s the next big break through.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  270. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    So what are you saying? You support flooding Britain with settlers who will outcompete the native population for jobs, housing, etc.? As a Brit, I sure don’t consider you a friend, just an advocate of national genocide.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @CanSpeccy
  271. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88

    There is some stuff on this in PNAS. Some gut flora produce GABA which acts on GABAergic afferent fibres of the vagus nerve. The effect would be slightly tranquilizing, inhibiting feedback from the gut to the brain in response to anxiety or other forms of stress. I am not aware of any other mechanism. GABA from the gut does not affect the brain directly as it does not cross the blood brain barrier.

    In some trials with mice, the effect of some GABA producing gut bacteria (Lactobacillus) had an anxiolytic effect during a forced swimming test!

  272. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    As a Brit

    Lol no. You’ll have to go back.

    • Troll: CanSpeccy
  273. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    This guy, Jason Osamede Okundaye, illustrates the kind of problem one can have with intelligent immigrants. A Cambridge University undergraduate, he heads some university “equality” group, and says: ‘All white people are racist’ and all white men, women and children ‘can all get it.’ He applauds the current round of black on white London rioting.

    Any government not intent on destroying its own people would put such scum on the first plane back to Africa. But that’s not what the British Government will do and its not what the PC wimps at Cambridge University will think to expect.

    On the question of censorship, I think this site would be better without anonymous commenters. The problem with them is not that one does not know with whom one is dealing but that one does not know whether one is dealing on successive occasions with the same or different personalities. This gives anonymous commentators the opportunity for constant stupid, insulting comments without acquiring a bad reputation. For example, this silly bugger I’m responding to now, could someone appearing at unz.com under another name (using a different IP address), a twit like Corvinus, for example.

    • Replies: @JackOH
  274. phil says:
    @res

    res,

    Sorry, it would take me a while to compile references. I would start with the latest edition of Plomin’s behavioral genetics textbook.

    The main point that should not be lost is that, even after controlling for other factors, cognitive ability has a substantial impact on life outcomes. Heckman is agreeing with hereditarians that group differences in ability and personality are obvious at an early age. Heckman still believes that these differences can be permanently reduced or eliminated via childhood interventions.

    • Replies: @res
  275. res says:
    @phil

    Thanks for the recommendation. I have the 4th edition of Plomin’s book which is ancient at this point (2000). The newest is the 7th (2016), but there seems to have been a reworking (new authors taking a bigger role) since the 6th (2012). All else equal, newer is better, but do you have any specific opinions about the 7th edition?

  276. JackOH says:
    @CanSpeccy

    “On the question of censorship . . . .”

    Here’s my comment of a few days ago under Ron’s announcements:

    “Ron, I just saw your disclaimer appended to a comment by an “anonymous”. The comment was pretty good. I had some wiggle room to respond to the good comment by “anonymous”. Why didn’t I? Because I can’t tell which “anonymous” might reply to my response. So the value to me of an “anonymous” comment is very much diminished. The disclaimer looks like a pretty good idea, maybe especially for newcomers.”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  277. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @JackOH

    Yeah, the Hell with the anonymice: a bunch of wimps, trolls and anonentities.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  278. utu says:
    @res

    There seems to be lots of confusion about FA even among its practitioners. This book

    Factor analysis: Healing an ailing model, By Ertel, Suitbert

    https://books.google.com/books?id=K1pdAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=fallacies+in+factor+analysis&source=bl&ots=By1YEw7eUz&sig=6LnnO0shdNVoY1fFp4uWwF48OSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn3qbx_7HVAhXJOSYKHcgPAVM4ChDoAQgoMAE#v=onepage&q=fallacies%20in%20factor%20analysis&f=false

    shows that there are disagreements which in my opinion stem from limited understanding of mathematical techniques that also leave a lot of room for flexibility as solutions are not unique (because orthogonality is not a sufficient condition of uniqueness) so they can be tweaked by various procedures like rotations. If rotations then what rotations and by how much? To satisfy what criterion? What is actually the final criterion that makes a given solution acceptable I do not know but I suspect it must be hypothesis driven. For example if you want one dominant g you do everything to get it but if you look for g and s of similar strength you may get them as well after proper rotation that redistributes loading among g and s. I suspect that the criteria are expressed in rather vague and imprecise language that is not mathematical. It is possible that researchers trained in one school under one professor will end up using the same recipe which will guarantee reproducibility within this group of researchers but not between different groups. Early in the age of FA there were two different schools: British and American that were doing things slightly differently. There was a period after WWII when FA usage stagnated and it was revived with development of new mathematical tools that somewhat made some procedures more grounded in mathematics, i.e, the objective was mathematically spelled out like maximize loadings here and there and so on. While finding eigenvectors is unique, doing FA seems to lead to different solutions depending which modules (sub-procedures) are used and in which order. These are recipes plus judgment at different stages. While the mathematical tools and algorithms to implement them are quite sophisticated and sometimes heavy consumers of computer time, the order of implementations of these procedures depends on judgments and envisioned outcome of individual researchers.

    Contemporary diamond cutters use the most sophisticated measurement techniques, cutting and polishing tools entirely depending on physics and techniques developed quite recently however the outcomes entirely depend on priorities of individual cutters driven by profit, market and fashion. It is a craft not science, right? I am just trying o find analogy for psychologists using FA techniques.

    The so called higher order FA started to be popularized in 1990s. Here is an article that

    http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED407418.pdf

    tries to make social scientists aware of it that cites one skeptic saying this:

    The average psychologist has difficulty in understanding first-order factors, and this difficulty is increased with higher-order factors. Also, if factor analysis is partly founded on the principle of parsimony, it is reasonable to question the parsimony of having different orders of factors.

    I am pretty sure the first sentence is true, however the second is debatable.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  279. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I post as anonymous sometimes because I am a very good writer, but I choose not to have some poor soul reading something insightful I wrote and then trying to read everything else I have written. I would not want that to happen: if I want someone to read everything I have to say on a subject, well, I will publish a book. I know those were two hard sentences to understand the first time through, so read them again. I post as anonymous sometimes because I am a very good writer, but I choose not to have some poor soul reading something insightful I wrote and then trying to read everything else I have written. I would not want that to happen: if I want someone to read everything I have to say on a subject, well, I will publish a book. I advise you, Can Speccy, to sometimes think better of your fellow humans than you do. (For the record, I plan to mention fascinating details about puddles – reflections, the second and more derivatives of atmospheric waves, memories of ancient oceans, simplistic memories in exquisite narratives, with a simple puddle memory included, like a detail in a beloved painting in an old palace – in the first sentence or the first paragraph of every book I have published or will publish. Thanks for reading: let us not insult each other: this is 2017 and we are all in this together.)

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  280. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @anonymous

    Thanks for reading: let us not insult each other

    That’s good with me.

  281. res says:

    A recent preprint I think is relevant to our discussion of genetics and human traits. This paper looks at 34 traits among 187 populations. I haven’t had time to read this closely yet.

    Polygenic Adaptation has Impacted Multiple Anthropometric Traits

    http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/07/23/167551

    For example:

    By comparing these polygenic scores to a null distribution under genetic drift, we identify strong signals of selection for a suite of anthropometric traits including height, infant head circumference (IHC), hip circumference (HIP) and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), as well as type 2 diabetes (T2D).

  282. @CanSpeccy

    That (the correlation of IQ with wit) I believe remains to be scientifically demonstrated. May be “IQ” tests should include a joke section. At least it would make test taking more fun.

    Almost all that you believe “remains to be demonstrated” has actually been the subject of research. Cattell developed a fluid intelligence test based on jokes. He found that jokes could be rated on their abstractness, and the appreciation of abstract jokes could serve as an intelligence measure.

    You’re concerned with different forms of creativity, but this has been the subject of an enormous amount of research. For instance, the Remote Associates Test predicted the originality of work done by architects. But that test is well correlated with measures of g.

    As to the unitary character fluid and crystallized intelligence, there is an enormous literature supporting this. When you argue against unity because there is no unitary “cognitive ability” but you ignore that there are two unitary abstractive abilities of broad ranging importance.

    Let me ask you a question at the risk of being rude. How is that you form such strong opinions about a matter about which you admit little knowledge? You don’t even know what kinds of questions are on typical IQ tests. (And Utu didn’t even know that g is typically based on higher order factor analysis, but now tries to universalize a confusion that is merely personal.)

    This seems typical of the political right. IQ is just a football for political differences, held dogmatically.

    • Replies: @utu
  283. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Let me ask you a question at the risk of being rude. How is that you form such strong opinions about a matter about which you admit little knowledge?

    Nothing “rude” about that. You’re dealing with people who will ignore – and blindly slander – any semi-scientific approach to the subject. Their “strong opinions” are purely emotional – reason be damned.

  284. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Let me ask you a question at the risk of being rude. How is that you form such strong opinions about a matter about which you admit little knowledge?

    I will answer by asking you a question: How is that you form such strong opinions about a matter about which you seemingly have little knowledge? I am referring to the the complexity of the brain with its 80 plus complex neurotransmission mechanimsms, the modularity of the brain, the phenomenon of neural resource re-allocation. IQ-ists assert their ability to assess a vastly complex system, indeed the most complex system known to exist in the entire universe, on the basis of a rather trivial set of paper and pencil tests of human mental functjon.

    Amazing arrogance, so well displayed in your insolent tone. But necessary, I suppose, in a profession that imposed upon the world, first with the analysis of dreams as the cure-all for neurotic illness, then behaviorism, which denied both the existence of mind and the fact that humans are purposeful, and then engaged, on the therapeutic side, in scandalous and dishonest collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry to promote the very questionable widespread use of so-called atypical antipsychotic drugs.

    It is significant, I think, that your question, which you acknowledge is framed in an insulting fashion, is essentially vacuous. You raise no technical issue that can be discussed. It is simply a slap in the face. An insult. Well done. You are an ornament to the IQ-ist community.

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
  285. @CanSpeccy

    The dictionary defines the term as the ability to acquire knowledge and skills, or more broadly as understanding and sagacity, which implies judgement, which is not the same as reasoning power.

    First definition in the American Heritage Dictionary:

    The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge

    One essential point here is that intelligence fundamentally has to do with knowledge, not “skills.” Acquiring and using knowledge is the process of reasoning.

    Another essential point is that intelligence is an ability (not as some like Pumpkin Person and Wechsler contend, the “sum total of a person’s ability to adapt.”)

    Judgment and understanding is the result of a reasoning process. Understanding is a constructive rather than passive process. I recall from The Critique of Pure Reason that Kant defines judgment as that faculty which allows you to understand abstractions with few examples. So, the notion that judgment is an intellectual process isn’t new, but it has been reinforced by decades of research in cognitive psychology.

    The term “intelligence” is derived from Greek, meaning “grasp.” Intelligence is the ability to grasp concepts and propositions. I sense an equivocation in your position: Do you deny there is a unified ability to grasp concepts? (Actually two abilities but substantially correlated: fluid and crystallized.) Or do you deny that this ability constitutes “intelligence”? If the latter, our difference is either merely semantic or, more likely, a difference about just how important abstractive ability is.

    What about imagination? A high g (sub f or sub c) may have the imagination of a gnat, but a low g person won’t imagine much of value. One of Cattell’s interesting findings was that the work of novelists can be evaluated by its abstractness, and the abstractness declines as the author ages because fluid intelligence declines with age.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  286. @CanSpeccy

    I will answer by asking you a question: How is that you form such strong opinions about a matter about which you seemingly have little knowledge? I am referring to the the complexity of the brain with its 80 plus complex neurotransmission mechanimsms, the modularity of the brain, the phenomenon of neural resource re-allocation. IQ-ists assert their ability to assess a vastly complex system, indeed the most complex system known to exist in the entire universe, on the basis of a rather trivial set of paper and pencil tests of human mental functjon.

    Leaving aside that I know about what you mention here, it is hardly an excuse to form strong opinions on which you know little that I (supposedly) do the same. Moreover, my opinions are far weaker than yours, even though I know more.

    Do you imagine no one before you has raised the question of how IQ can be justified in light of the brain’s complexity? Do you imagine the question has gone unanswered? Do you have no interest in hearing what the proposed answer is? That’s what I mean by arrogance. I don’t give a shit about “tone.”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  287. @utu

    The so called higher order FA started to be popularized in 1990s.

    No, higher order factors have long been the mainstay of the theory of intelligence. The British factor analyst Philip Vernon and psychologist introduced a hierarchical model of intelligence in 1950. (Your quote is from an unpublished manuscript delivered at a regional conference.) Vernon’s was and still is a very influential model.

    The book you cite critiquing simple structure ignores (as far as I can tell) the associated practices: the need for marker tests and most of all the need for hyperplane material (irrelevant, uncorrelated variables that form the background against which factors are rotated. (Unfortunately, some contemporary factor analysists also ignore the second requirement, strongly stressed by Cattell.) Orthogonality to the hyperplanes, not orthogonality to the other factors, is the foundation of Cattellian factor analysis.

    • Replies: @utu
  288. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    So now you concede the main point that I made at #28 above and to which you referred to just a moment ago as matters of opinion about which “you admit little knowledge.”

    As I said at 28#:

    For the general public, the trouble with psychology is that it appropriates common concepts and redefines them in accordance with what it can measure. The result is that the public is taken for a dangerous ride.

    And this you concede by insisting, contrary to common usage, that intelligence consists in nothing but the ability to acquire knowledge and to reason.

    Let me point out a couple of consequences of that concession. First, you are asserting what disproves the contention of psychologists such as Jordan Peterson, that IQ is the best predictor of life success, whatever that is (did St. Francis have life success? did Jesus? Did Nikola Tesla, who died almost broke, dependent for a pittance on a foreign government, and whose name has been appropriated by a car company which appears in the first ten places of a Google search, i.e., there is no reference to the man whose name has been appropriated, and … but one could list names endlessly).

    Second, you are acknowledging the other main claim of my post at #28; namely, that intelligence as generally understood involves much more than reasoning power. It entails imagination, a host of skills from playing the violin to timing stock markets and carving the Venus de Milo, wit, humor etc., all factors that may surely contribute enormously to “life success”.

    Then, while claiming IQ to be unitary, you talk of “g (sub f or sub c),” i.e., we now have components of g, which is clearly, therefore, not unitary, as anyone could have guessed from the existence of people like Kurt Goedel, possibly the greatest mathematician of the 20 th century who was such an irrational obsessive and hysteric that the Princeton Math Department would not admit him to the faculty. Nevertheless, he retained his reasoning power and helped Einstein with his math.

    So I guess I owe you thanks for demolishing your own position.

  289. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Let’s hear more about my arrogance when you have answered my comment at #295.

    The fact that you have begun to employ expletives and continue to allege my arrogance because I point out what that what the psychologists know is a rather small part of what there is to be known about the human mind (which psychologists so recently denied exists at all) only seems to emphasize the vacuity of your position.

    But perhaps you have indigestion or experienced a bad date or some such thing. Why not go outside and walk off your irritability instead of venting at me.

  290. First, you are asserting what disproves the contention of psychologists such as Jordan Peterson, that IQ is the best predictor of life success, whatever that is

    I explicitly disagreed with Peterson in an earlier reply.

    Second, you are acknowledging the other main claim of my post at #28; namely, that intelligence as generally understood involves much more than reasoning power. It entails imagination, a host of skills from playing the violin to timing stock markets and carving the Venus de Milo, wit, humor etc., all factors that may surely contribute enormously to “life success”.

    Yes, that’s why Peterson is wrong. But this isn’t what intelligence is “generally understood” to mean. Perhaps usage in novels could avail something here. Characters in novels are sometimes described as intelligent. I’ve been alert to this usage. “Intelligent” is used to mean that they acquire knowledge easily and apply it discriminatingly. If someone is a good musician, he isn’t necessarily described as intelligent. “Talent” is distinct from intelligence. Talents may be more or less dependent on intelligence. I’m a fast typist. This isn’t due to any intelligence on my part; it is a function of a separate factor, speed in simple operations.

    As to Godel, he surely had very high fluid and crystallized intelligence. Again, you (like your opposite, the IQ fundamentalists) want to define intelligence as something like the capacity for success. Everyday usage (and novels) know plenty of people who are highly intelligent but hopelessly neurotic and terribly unsuccessful.

    The clincher is Roe’s classic study. Eminent scientists of all kinds were very high on measures loaded with fluid and crystallized intelligence. Equivalent at least to an average IQ of 150. On the other hand, many (the social scientists) often scored much lower on a test of spatial ability. This illustrates the overall pattern: intelligence is a necessary but insufficient requirement for intellectual success and figures importantly in other forms of life success that involve negotiating complexity by means of abstraction. Spatial ability is an example of a non-intelligence ability: its importance is more circumscribed.

    Fluid and crystallized intelligence are separate but correlated factors. To say there are two kinds of intelligence is indeed to deviate from common sense, but the bifurcation is mitigated by their respective roles. Crystallized intelligence seems to result from the investment of fluid intelligence. (This, however, is controversial.)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @utu
    , @CanSpeccy
  291. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Yes, that’s why Peterson is wrong.

    Really? How so? He’s notably mentioned conscientiousness and wealth as fairly significant, but still inferior, factors.

  292. utu says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Orthogonality to the hyperplanes, not orthogonality to the other factors, is the foundation of Cattellian factor analysis.

    Definition: “hyperplane is a subspace of one dimension less than its ambient space.”

    So if the factor F is orthogonal to hyperplane H then all vectors belonging to H are orthogonal to F. If there are factors that belong to H they are orthogonal to F. Vectors which are not orthogonal to F must be either (1) parallel to F, which makes them uninteresting, or (2) must be a linear combination F and some vector S belonging to H. If your space has dimension of n you need to find n-1 dimension base of linearly independent vectors S in H with which (plus the vector F) via linear combination vectors V=a*F+b*S and the vector F can span the whole space, i.e, explain all variance that is in the data. However one may ask what is the actual wisdom to represent data with the base of new vectors that are all correlated wth other after all the original data suffered exactly this malady of being intercorrelated with each other and factorization was supposed to cure this malady and reveal independent (uncorrelated, orthogonal) factors? And what these vectors V suppose to represent? That they are a little bit of F and little bit of some S that belongs to H? All this is mathematically permitted. Mathematics is surprisingly patient. If your guru Cattel wanted it to be this way to facilitate his fanciful theories, why not. But doing it this way does not proof his theories. There are infinite numbers of factorizations possible and thus there are infinite number of theories that can use any factorization as a crutch at best but not as a proof. As I am more acquainted with how the Factor Analysis is practiced by people like Cattel I am more willing to agree with those who claim that this whole field is full of charlatanry. You might be a victim of it yourself. Have you thought of it?

  293. utu says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    And Utu didn’t even know that g is typically based on higher order factor analysis, but now tries to universalize a confusion that is merely personal.

    I have already somewhere above quoted from John Carroll’s Views on Intelligence: Bi-Factor vs. Higher-Order Models, A. Alexander Beaujean, J. Intell. 2015, 3, 121-136

    Those interested in studying g typically did so using the first unrotated factor from an exploratory factor analysis (or the simpler principal components analysis) or used a higher-order factor analysis.

    The only g that is not arbitrary (within the scope of single particular covariance matrix) is the one that is associated with the largest eigenvalue of the covariance matrix because, as it can be fairly easily proven (see wiki for Rayleigh quotient)) that this g is a vector that maximizes the Rayleigh quotient which in other words means that there is no other vector in the whole space of available vectors that could explain as much variance in the data as this g. So, any other g obtained by other means than the first order PCA explains less data. So this first order PCA g is indeed special. Only this g can be used as the crowning argument by the g/IQ-kool-aid drinkers that there is a special intelligence factor that is unique and that it explains more data than other factors so it is special (and thus it must be behind all intelligence and it must be genetic and certainly Blacks have less of it..). The argument (about uniqueness and magnitude) as long as your battery of test happens to “prefer” this g and not the 2nd strongest factor that always can be beefed up by adding new tests to the battery is technically correct, but philosophically or epistemological it is specious because there always will be one eigenvalue that is the largest. Did you know that the fact that any finite set of numbers has a minimal element is equivalent to the induction principle in Peano axiomatization? So it is really basic or in other ways trivial and disingenuous to claim that existence of what must exist can be an argument for something.

  294. utu says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Fluid and crystallized intelligence are separate but correlated factors.

    If f and c are considered to be factors (base vectors) in Cattell’s theory then their correlation must be fixed or is it that the angle between f and c changes. So what is the cosine of angle between f and c? It must be an important constant, right? 0 or 1 are important constants and recognizable by everybody. That’s why orthogonality is so important because correlation is zero and cosine of the angle between vectors is one and not something in between 0 and 1. Anyway, did Cattell establish what was the value of this constant?

  295. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Stephen, you can define intelligence, for your own purpose, anyway you want, but you cannot impose that definition on the public, and you should not try to convince anyone that your definition corresponds with the meaning of the term as commonly understood, since to do so is to mislead the public as to what psychologists measure with IQ tests.

    Specifically, you declare that intelligence does not entail “imagination, a host of skills from playing the violin to timing stock markets and carving the Venus de Milo, wit, humor etc.” yet that is exactly how intelligence is understood in common parlance. Cleverness consists in the demonstration of skill, the acquisition of skill being a manifestation of intelligence. Thus, cleverness and intelligence are synonyms.

    But let Google be the arbiter:

    Intelligence

    noun,

    the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

    synonyms: intellectual capacity, mental capacity, intellect, mind, brain(s), IQ, brainpower, judgment, reasoning, understanding, comprehension; acumen, wit, sense, insight, perception, penetration, discernment, smartness, canniness, astuteness, intuition, acuity, cleverness, brilliance, ability; informal braininess.

    True, IQ is listed as a synonym of intelligence, but so are all the qualities that you wish to exclude from the definition. IQ as a measure of intelligence is thus a measure of a form of intelligence, but not of most forms of what are understood to be manifestations of intelligence.

    • Replies: @AP
  296. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But let Google be the arbiter:

    Intelligence

    noun,

    the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

    But why assume that the skills are of a non-cognitive nature? Would someone able to pick up the skill of typing quickly be considered intelligent? I doubt this the generally understood view of intelligence. Indeed, each of the synonyms listed have to do with the mind.

    And why avoid actual dictionaries?

    Merriam-Webster (American English):

    a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)

    Cambridge (British English):

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/intelligence

    the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason

    How does google define IQ?

    a number representing a person’s reasoning ability (measured using problem-solving tests) as compared to the statistical norm or average for their age, taken as 100

    Merriam Webster:

    a number used to express the apparent relative intelligence of a person: such as
    a : the ratio of the mental age (as reported on a standardized test) to the chronological age multiplied by 100
    b : a score determined by one’s performance on a standardized intelligence test relative to the average performance of others of the same age

    Do you object to any of these definitions?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  297. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    But why assume that the skills are of a non-cognitive nature?

    Far be it from me to do so. But indicating in exactly what way any particular skill is cognitive in nature would likely be a challenge.

    And why avoid actual dictionaries?

    Again, far be it from me to do so. Indeed at #28 above, I quoted my preferred dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary:

    as the Oxford Dictionary defines it [intelligence consists in], “understanding and sagacity”

    Do you object to any of these definitions?

    Well obviously none of them covers the field in its entirety. That’s why I said “let Google be the arbiter,” because a Google search for “Intelligence, definition” provides links to many different dictionary definitions.

    Oddly, since capacity for the acquisition of knowledge is generally recognized as an aspect of intelligence, none of the definitions of intelligence that I have come across explicitly names memory as an aspect of intelligence, although among those who are generally deemed intellectually brilliant, an exceptional memory seems a common feature. However, I suppose psychologists would hate to label memory an aspect of intelligence since it would then raise the question of whether savants, who often have extraordinary memory are intelligent. To me the answer is obvious. In their special domain savants are hyper-intelligent.

    • Replies: @AP
  298. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    although among those who are generally deemed intellectually brilliant, an exceptional memory seems a common feature.

    There is the stereotypical “absent-minded professor”, on the other hand.

    I suppose psychologists would hate to label memory an aspect of intelligence since

    Why do you have this idea? Working memory is one of the four indices of the Wechsler IQ test. The vocabulary and information subtests of the Wechsler IQ test are devoted to memory of word definitions and facts, respectively.

    it would then raise the question of whether savants, who often have extraordinary memory are intelligent.

    “Idiot savants” are by definition not intelligent in general, they are simply brilliant in one area.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/savant

    “a person affected with a mental disability (such as autism or mental retardation) who exhibits exceptional skill or brilliance in some limited field (such as mathematics or music)”

    Google:

    “a person who is considered to be mentally handicapped but displays brilliance in a specific area, especially one involving memory.
    Origin

    French, literally ‘learned idiot.’”

    A mentally retarded person with autism, who has memorized all of a town’s bus schedules is not generally considered to be intelligent.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  299. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    A mentally retarded person with autism, who has memorized all of a town’s bus schedules is not generally considered to be intelligent.

    If you needed a bus to get to an appointment at 8.00 am on Thursday morning, you’d probably think it intelligent.

    But in any case, I cannot see what difference it makes in deciding if a feat of memory represents intelligence, whether the matter remembered is the skyline of New York, Bach’s Goldberg Variations, or the schedule of the No. 9 bus. My father had a bizarre trick of remembering faces and would occasionally approach someone in a public place and identify them, explaining that, no, they were not acquainted, but maybe 30 years before they had crossed paths under this or that circumstance. I always thought that an indication of his quite formidable intelligence.

    • Replies: @AP
  300. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    If you needed a bus to get to an appointment at 8.00 am on Thursday morning, you’d probably think it intelligent.

    If someone were mentally retarded but could describe in detail next week’s bus schedule most people wouldn’t say, “what an intelligent man that is!”

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  301. Pat Boyle says:
    @unpc downunder

    I got a BA in psychology and no one ever mentioned that the IQ of blacks was lower than that of whites. This was San Francisco State in the late sixties. That little fact was never mentioned anywhere outside of the college campus and also never mentioned in any psychology class I took.

    It sort of leaked out when I sat in on a Sociology class as a guest. A friend had recommended the professor as a good speaker. He mentioned that blacks had lower IQ’s as an aside. He saw the IQ Gap as a problem that we would soon overcome.

    I was thunderstruck.

    I had never heard about race and IQ in any class. I’m not a dummy. About this this I also took the GRE and had gotten an 800 on the verbal part I did almost as well on the quantitative part.. I read voraciously but had never read that blacks had lower IQs. It immediately explained so much about society and social problems. I was certain that soon the word would get out and that revelation would transform America.

    Wrong.

    Instead we have all the commercials of TV now have blacks in them and these blacks are shown as more able that the slow witted white people also in the ad. We have gone from hiding the reality of black mental inferiority to a myth of black superiority. Maybe the white people will react to having been lied to for so long.

  302. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    If someone were mentally retarded but could describe in detail next week’s bus schedule most people wouldn’t say, “what an intelligent man that is!”

    It would depend, really, on whether he knew what he was talking about or was merely uttering what had been learned by rote. Hence the Oxford Dictionary’s reference to “understanding” as a feature of intelligence. However, the more that is remembered with understanding, the more intelligence is entailed.

  303. @res

    Without even looking for information on this I came across a recent article by nephrologist Dr. Jason Fung (obesity, diabetes and intermittent fasting expert) and he seems to dismiss the claims:

    >In the 1960’s the king of vitamins was vitamin C. Linus Pauling is the only person to have won two unshared Nobel Prizes – once for chemistry and once for peace. He had the firm unshakeable belief that many of the problems of modern nutrition could be cured by mega doses of vitamin C. He suggested that high dose vitamin C could prevent or cure the common cold, the flu and even cancer. He even suggested that “75% of all cancer can be prevented and cured by vitamin C alone”. That, of course is wildly optimistic. Many studies were done over the next few decades that clearly proved that most of these vitamin C claims were simply false hopes. Turns out the only disease Vitamin C cures is scurvy. Since I don’t treat many 15th century pirates, it’s not too useful for me.

    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/vitamins-and-calcium/

    Still undecided and I did read the article you linked which talks about the quackwatch article which Dr. Fung links. I need to do more reading here but I trust Fung for the truth and no bullshit. He actively goes against Big Pharma and Big Food as well. He’s always calling out the shills.

    • Replies: @res
  304. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Some of those claims do sound excessive. It’s hard to know when context is not provided. If someone writes and speaks on a topic over a period of decades it can be easy to find unguarded statements–especially in places other than the actual research papers. I am skeptical of unsourced quotes for this reason. My comment 197 above is a good example. The passage I quote could be used in that fashion, but I don’t think it is representative.

    If you do decide to look at the underlying studies (e.g. the Cameron and Pauling studies and Mayo Clinic “replications”). Pay special attention to the following elements of the protocols used (the “replications” tended to differ from the original):
    - Whether or not subjects had been previously treated with chemotherapy.
    - Whether oral or intravenous vitamin C was used.
    - Vitamin C dosage used.

    The top half of the book page at this link gives a pretty good and brief summary with references: https://books.google.com/books?id=J-mPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6

  305. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    “Is “normal” “optimal”?”

    I would say that ‘normal’ is ‘average’ and therefore ‘optimal’. I’m open to counters to that though.

    “Are there no variables where more (or less) is always better (all else being equal)?”

    Higher Vo2 max would be ‘always better’ than lower.

    You pretty much countered yourself unless I am missing something. VO2max is a good example. Would an ultra high VO2max still be good if it occurred because of excessive EPO use? What about if a heart attack resulted?

    https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/blood-doping#item-591

    Also worth wondering why VO2max has not evolved to be even higher.

    I agree. Which evolutionary factors do you believe would impede from using advanced technology?

    Primarily IQ. One observation is that interfaces (e.g. smartphones) tend to be designed with certain assumptions. They can be designed for a variety of users (cf. ergonomics for different body dimensions). There are limits though. I don’t think I could design an interface to a statistical package that would enable someone with an 85 IQ to do useful work (due to lack of understanding of the concepts involved). Technology also tends to go through phases where the user interface improves and becomes more broadly usable (cf. automobiles).

    Are you saying that people with higher IQs burn more kcal?

    Not necessarily. There are usually two ways to improve performance:
    1. Make the system more efficient (which may have an initial cost).
    2. Apply more power, size, etc.
    I’ve mentioned myelin in other threads here. I think that is an example where a higher initial load results in greater efficiency.

    All else being equal I would expect a larger brain to be both more intelligent and burn more kcal (more true “on average”). Of course all else is not always equal.

    Any refs for high IQ/torsion dystonia risk/metabolic trade-offs (which I assume would be kcal used to power the brain)?

    The torsion dystonia tradeoff (it is dominant) is more about higher IQ vs. overall health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_dystonia#IQ

    Also see sphingolipid disorders which increase IQ in heterozygotes but cause problems in homozygotes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16867211

    This paper is more about interspecies brain size and metabolic cost: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7375/abs/nature10629.html
    But I think it is reasonable to assume the same selection pressures apply within our species.

    “Possible alienation from not being able to relate well to the “normal.””

    How would that trade-off work be ‘good’? We evolved as social beings and so ‘possible alienation from not being able to relate well to the “normal”‘ would not be in our evolutionary favor.

    Exactly. The good side is the ability to do things others cannot. Worth emphasizing the importance of evolution occurring within the whole group. Individuals could keep evolving upwards within say +2SD of the group, but at some point we get the counterpressure you describe. As long as the group keeps evolving upwards (which it may not because of other tradeoffs) individuals can keep evolving with no final upper limit.

    How about the cost of higher IQ people not having children? I’ve always considered a bio explanation, but have recently been thinking that as places modernize, there is ‘too much to do’ which would decrease birth rates as well.

    This is important in today’s world. I have always assumed it was mostly due to extended education delaying family formation along with career goal conflicts giving a disincentive to have more children. I suspect there is more going on there though.

    Any idea if high IQ people (say 2 SDs) have lower testosterone? Logic dictates no because higher IQ people have higher SES and thus better access to better food and they exercise more. I cannot find a specific study on this one point, maybe you know one.

    This paper talks about T and IQ and notes a U shaped relationship, but I have not looked at it in detail: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11913330

    I don’t deny the usefulness of high IQ (whatever it means/tests). I wouldn’t want to live in a society where the average IQ was, say, 2 SDs, though.

    I would (I base that on going to a college where I believe that was true). How would you feel about living in such a society if you were able to maintain your current advantage over the average? (i.e. higher IQ society and same relative position)

    The BMI with the lowest mortality has risen to around 27; BMI isn’t a good predictor of mortality.

    I think we are on the same page with respect to thinking about BMI.

    “All of that said, I am not sure how I feel about the philosophical issue posed overall. But I do think it is reasonable to posit that one end of the normal range is better than the other. As an example, with IQ I think being +2SD is clearly better than being average, which is clearly better than being -2SD.””

    I disagree on a group level but don’t on the individual level.

    Could you elaborate on why you disagree on a group level? It would help me if we both tried to be clear about the importance of relative vs. absolute IQs.

    Variation in BP (like, say, 120 SBP to 140 SBP) is ‘normal’. I believe even around 110 for SBP is within that range, need to check my books. For DPB between 75 and 90 is within normal diurnal fluctuations due to activity/eating/etc. BP, like testosterone, is one of those tricky variables to measure and so must be measured upon waking to see if there are any problems. The above paper argues for raising the ‘normal’ range.

    BP is a good example (PSA and prostate cancer is another). The risk differences between 120 and 140 SBP are substantial (my own research using a spline fit shows maybe a 30% increased odds ratio of all cause mortality after adjusting for age, sex, smoking and race). The issue that crops up here is treatment risk. Number needed to treat and side effect profiles are both important. There is also the question of whether a medicated 120 SBP is the same as unmedicated 120. To sum up my thinking on this topic I would offer the following rough categories:
    - Optimal. Don’t change anything.
    - Typical but higher risk. Try low risk interventions like a changed diet. For BP increasing potassium intake through either diet or supplements is probably worth trying.
    - Higher risk. Worth treating medically. Should consider lower risk interventions as well–perhaps just this first.
    - Immediately dangerous. Medical treatment preferred for immediate effect. Consider lower risk interventions as part of long term solution.

    I would put 125 or 130-140 SBP in the typical but higher risk category. Note that I am looking at between individual variation, say testing at the same time every morning. Within individual variation is more complex and less well researched.

    I think most work advocating raising the normal range for BP and PSA is addressing the issue of current risk not being high enough to justify treatment risk. My preferred solution is to advocate less dramatic treatments as the way to address this.

    What do you think?

    “IMHO your “only notice something wrong when they fall outside the range” is overly simplistic. Though useful (good) in a “perfect is the enemy of the good sense.” Your simplification is useful for conveying concepts to non-experts. Just don’t confuse it with reality.”

    I don’t think so. It is reality. Every body is different—both anatomically and physiologically—and so different things work for different people and different people with differing values can live long and healthy lives.

    I feel like we are talking past each other here (just this last excerpt). I agree with your final sentence. Hopefully my categories discussion above clarifies my point of view.

  306. Logan says:
    @Anonymous

    He’s Canadian, like the great Mark Steyn, and thus sadly ineligible to be president.

    Why are there so many brilliant articulate spokesmen for our cause from UK and Canada, but we get stuck with Trump?

    • Replies: @helena
  307. helena says:
    @Logan

    I don’t understand that. Who in UK or Europe is an articulate spokesman? From this side of the Atlantic it looks as if Americans will be the last Europeans standing.

  308. Logan says:

    Daniel Hannan, for one. Though possibly he looks different to a Brit or European.

    • Replies: @helena
  309. helena says:
    @Logan

    I saw him a couple of times during the Brexit debate but apparently he was never against immigration. It would be useful if he piped up a bit more to demonstrate his knowledge of the British constitution but perhaps he writes stuff that I don’t read. He isn’t charismatic enough for mass appeal. Rees-Mogg has quite a following.

    • Replies: @Logan
  310. Logan says:
    @helena

    Had to look up his ideas on immigration. You seem to be right. He’s apparently all in with it.

Current Commenter
says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS