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

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

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 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  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.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jthompson/fear-and-loathing-in-psychology/#comment-1944853
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  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

    Read More
  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?

    Read More
  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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Trevor_Z
    Seconding the request for a reference on this, I just watched the presentation and, unless I missed it, multiple intelligences were not mentioned.
  5. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Patrick Harris
    To be fair, I have a graduate-level education and am absolute rubbish at tasks that require assembling objects.
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "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.
    , @Dr. Russell T. Warne
    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. :-(
  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.

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

    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 –?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I'll add to the Bernays' quotation:

    if the public becomes able to bear more truth, it will be told more of it.
    , @Colleen Pater
    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.
  9. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous

    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 --?

    I’ll add to the Bernays’ quotation:

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

    Read More
  10. Read More
    • Replies: @res
    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.
    , @FKA Max
    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
     
  11. res says:
    @James Thompson
    see if this link works. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZOTl3clpiX0JKckk/view?usp=sharing

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. Russell T. Warne
    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.
  12. FKA Max says:
    @James Thompson
    see if this link works. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3c4TxciNeJZOTl3clpiX0JKckk/view?usp=sharing

    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

    Read More
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.
  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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    I had trouble with that too. "No different" in what respect?
  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.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    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.
    , @Pat Boyle
    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.
  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.

    Read More
  18. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “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

    Read More
  19. Logan says:
    @JackOH
    "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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    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.
  20. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @unpc downunder
    Well at least some psychology students are getting a good education:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    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?

  21. @Anonymous

    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.

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

    Read More
  22. @Anonymous

    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 --?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    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.
  23. 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…

    Read More
  24. 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.

    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.

    Read More
  25. 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.

    Read More
  26. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    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.
    , @res

    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
    , @Anonymous

    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.
    , @silviosilver
    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.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.)
    , @Wizard of Oz
    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.
    , @utu
    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.
  27. @Santoculto

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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.
  28. @Santoculto

    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.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dube
    Good question. Or, in what respect are they the same? Can we get an answer?
  29. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @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. 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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.
  30. res says:
    @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. 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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.

  31. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  32. @Colleen Pater
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    But they copied industrial revolution from western, every step.
    , @Colleen Pater
    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
  33. @Ads
    I am a recent graduate with a BS in psychology, and I didn't realize just how little I learned about intelligence.

    “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.

    Read More
  34. @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    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.
  35. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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.
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @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. 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.

    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.

    Read More
  37. @Wizard of Oz
    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.

    But they copied industrial revolution from western, every step.

    Read More
  38. @Priss Factor
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  39. @Santoculto
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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.
    , @silviosilver

    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.
    , @Santoculto

    “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.
  40. @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. 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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.

  41. @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. 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.

    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.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    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).
  42. @Stephen R. Diamond
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  43. @Stephen R. Diamond
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
     
    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.)
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.]
  44. @Santoculto
    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.

    don’t try to lie for …. ourselves…

    Read More
  45. @Stephen R. Diamond
    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Physiological basis of g? Still waiting...
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.
  46. @silviosilver

    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.

    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.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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].
  47. @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.
     
    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.)

    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].

    Read More
  48. @Santoculto

    “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.

    Physiological basis of g? Still waiting…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    The ''physiologist'' here is you.

    Factor G of Ferris-wheel...
  49. @RaceRealist88
    Physiological basis of g? Still waiting...

    The ”physiologist” here is you.

    Factor G of Ferris-wheel…

    Read More
  50. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @silviosilver
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    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.)
    , @silviosilver
    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.
    , @Anonymous

    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?
  51. @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. 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.

    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.

    Read More
  52. @Santoculto
    The ''physiologist'' here is you.

    Factor G of Ferris-wheel...

    No substantial reply.. as usual.

    Read More
  53. 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

    Read More
  54. @Santoculto

    “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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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 *
  55. @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @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. 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.
  56. JackOH says:
    @Logan
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  57. @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.

    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 *

    Read More
  58. @Stephen R. Diamond
    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.)

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
     
    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.
  59. Dube says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    I had trouble with that too. "No different" in what respect?

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

    Read More
  60. @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. 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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Seems what is sporadic for some of them is to the rule for us, at least the basic of abstraction.
  61. @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
  62. @silviosilver

    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.

    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.]

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    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.
  63. helena says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.)

    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).

    Read More
  64. 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.

    Read More
  65. 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.

    Read More
  66. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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.

  67. @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.
     
    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.

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

    Read More
  68. @Anonymous

    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?

    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.

    Read More
  69. @Wizard of Oz
    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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    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.
  70. @Colleen Pater
    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

    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.

    Read More
  71. res says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.]

    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.

    Read More
  72. @Ads
    I am a recent graduate with a BS in psychology, and I didn't realize just how little I learned about intelligence.

    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. :-(

    Read More
  73. @res
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    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!
  74. res says:
    @Dr. Russell T. Warne
    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.

    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!

    Read More
  75. utu says:
    @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. 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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    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.
    , @Anonymous

    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.
    , @silviosilver

    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.

  76. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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).
    , @RaceRealist88
    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.
    , @AP

    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) ?
  77. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I doubt about the subversive intent. Rather it is his hubris.
    , @utu
    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.
  78. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @utu
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.
  79. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy
    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.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.
  80. @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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).

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
    , @CanSpeccy

    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.

  81. @Santoculto
    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).

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "or logically"

    You don't know basic logic. You can't answer simple premises. Why are you talking about logic?
  82. @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.

  83. @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.

    “or logically”

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

    Read More
  84. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto
    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).

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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.
  85. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.

    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.
  86. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    I doubt about the subversive intent. Rather it is his hubris.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    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.
  87. @Colleen Pater
    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.
  88. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  89. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    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
  90. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
  91. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    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
  92. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  93. @RaceRealist88
    "or logically"

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

    ..

    Even to troll other people you are this…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    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.
  94. @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Cognition etymology and not etiology.

    Yes what I said.

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

    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.
  95. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.
  96. @Santoculto
    ..

    Even to troll other people you are this...

    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.

    Read More
  97. @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    "Here a citation"

    As ALWAYS ^_~

    What is the "physiological g" Personal??
    , @CanSpeccy
    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.

    , @CanSpeccy
    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.
  98. @RaceRealist88
    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.

    Yesssss

    Read More
  99. @RaceRealist88
    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

    “Here a citation”

    As ALWAYS ^_~

    What is the “physiological g” Personal??

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Never cite things! Pull things out of nowhere, 'philosophize' on things without knowing basic logic!"

    You tell me since you're talking about it.
  100. @Santoculto
    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.

    Cognition etymology and not etiology.

    Yes what I said.

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

    Read More
  101. @Santoculto
    "Here a citation"

    As ALWAYS ^_~

    What is the "physiological g" Personal??

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

    You tell me since you’re talking about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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...
    , @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?
  102. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    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?
  103. @RaceRealist88
    "Never cite things! Pull things out of nowhere, 'philosophize' on things without knowing basic logic!"

    You tell me since you're talking about it.

    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…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    And personal I want examples of my nonsensities or noncognitivities here, ;)
    , @RaceRealist88
    "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.
  104. @Santoculto
    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...

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

    Read More
  105. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88
    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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    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!
  106. @RaceRealist88
    "Never cite things! Pull things out of nowhere, 'philosophize' on things without knowing basic logic!"

    You tell me since you're talking about it.

    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?

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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Intelligence is a measure??

    Do you could reply other parts of my comment? If you want.
  108. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.
  109. @CanSpeccy

    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.

    Intelligence is a measure??

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

    Read More
  110. @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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
    , @RaceRealist88
    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.

    =^)
    , @RaceRealist88
    "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...
  111. Trevor_Z says:
    @James Thompson
    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

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

    Read More
  112. @Santoculto
    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...

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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.
  113. @Santoculto
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  114. @Santoculto
    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.

    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.

    =^)

    Read More
  115. @Santoculto
    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.

    “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…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    O.K.
    , @Santoculto
    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... )
  116. @RaceRealist88
    "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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Ad hominem/character attack. All you can do... Cannot address arguments... You're hilarious.
  117. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    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?

    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.

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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "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/
  119. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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) ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.
  120. @RaceRealist88
    "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...

    O.K.

    Read More
  121. @Santoculto
    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.

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

    Read More
  122. @RaceRealist88
    "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...

    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… )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.

    Why honor culture don't affect all lower income blacks?? Hum?
    , @RaceRealist88
    "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.
  123. @Santoculto
    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... )

    Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences.

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

    Read More
  124. @utu
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    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.”
  125. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    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."
  126. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    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) ?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    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?
    , @AP

    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.
  127. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res
    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.

    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.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    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.
  128. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    ''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*

    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.
  129. @CanSpeccy
    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.

    ”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*

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    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.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "DEVELOPMENT, literally speaking, OR ”reach”*

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

    Things can happen without environmental input---Santoculto
  130. @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.

    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.
    , @Santoculto
    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.
  131. @CanSpeccy
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.

    , @middle aged vet . . .
    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.
    , @RaceRealist88
    "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.
  132. @CanSpeccy
    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.

    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!

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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.
  133. utu says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.

    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.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    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.

    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.
  134. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto
    ''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*

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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*
  135. @utu
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  136. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    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?

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    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).
    , @Anonymous

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

    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.

    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.

    Read More
  138. @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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. @middle aged vet . . .
    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.

    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).

    Read More
  140. @Santoculto
    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... )

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    In pumpkin person most people know you are extremely stupid. It's a question of time to perceive this.

    Piece
  141. @Santoculto
    ''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*

    “DEVELOPMENT, literally speaking, OR ”reach”*

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

    Things can happen without environmental input—Santoculto

    Read More
  142. @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    So, fitness isn't a biological concept. (Being a "ranked trait.")
  143. @CanSpeccy
    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.

    “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/

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    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?
    , @CanSpeccy

    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.
  144. @Stephen R. Diamond

    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?

    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.

    Read More
  145. AP says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "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/

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    It'd be within normal variation. Physiologists don't rant traits. Psychologists do.
  146. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    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.
    , @CanSpeccy

    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.

  147. @RaceRealist88
    "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.

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

    Piece

    Read More
  148. @Santoculto
    In pumpkin person most people know you are extremely stupid. It's a question of time to perceive this.

    Piece

    More idioticness. Can’t address anything. Ha.

    Read More
  149. @AP

    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?

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096102/

    Norms for an Isometric Muscle Endurance Test
    , @res

    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.
  150. @AP

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    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?
  151. AP says:
    @RaceRealist88
    It'd be within normal variation. Physiologists don't rant traits. Psychologists do.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096102/

    Norms for an Isometric Muscle Endurance Test

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    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.
  152. @CanSpeccy
    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.

    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*

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    How do you explain this situation?
     
    That's the one of life's big questions, as this debate confirms.
  153. @RaceRealist88
    More idioticness. Can't address anything. Ha.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    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...
  154. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @silviosilver

    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!

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    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.
    , @silviosilver

    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.

  155. res says:
    @CanSpeccy
    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."

    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.

    Read More
  156. @Santoculto
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    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…

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    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
     
  157. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @RaceRealist88
    "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/

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    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.
    , @RaceRealist88
    Further, the mental defectives are outside of the normal range of variation.
    , @phil
    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.
  158. @AP
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096102/

    Norms for an Isometric Muscle Endurance Test

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    So were there rankings or norms, or not?
    , @res

    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.
  159. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.

    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.
    , @res

    The argument being whether the intelligence of an individual is uniform across-the-board. You say it is
     
    Nice strawman.
  160. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto
    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*

    How do you explain this situation?

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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.
  161. @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    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/
  162. res 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.

    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.

    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).

    Read More
  163. AP says:
    @RaceRealist88
    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.

    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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "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
    , @CanSpeccy


    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
  164. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @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.
     
    "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.
  165. AP says:
    @RaceRealist88
    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.

    So were there rankings or norms, or not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "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.
  166. @CanSpeccy

    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.

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

    Read More
  167. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @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.

    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.

    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.

    Read More
  168. @AP

    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?

    “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

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    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.
  169. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    It'd be within normal variation. Physiologists don't rant traits. Psychologists do.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "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.

    "
  170. phil says:
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
  171. phil says:
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    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.
     
    , @CanSpeccy

    [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.

    , @utu
    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?
  172. @AP
    So were there rankings or norms, or not?

    “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.

    Read More
  173. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    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...

    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

    Read More
  174. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    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.
  175. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    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.

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

    Nice strawman.

    Read More
  176. AP says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "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

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "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?
  177. @CanSpeccy

    How do you explain this situation?
     
    That's the one of life's big questions, as this debate confirms.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    CanSpeccy,

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

    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.

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    “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.
  179. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu
    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.”

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    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.
    , @utu
    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?
  180. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    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.

    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/

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    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.
  181. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    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?

    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

    Read More
  182. @Santoculto
    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.

    CanSpeccy,

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Sorry, this comment is really confused, i hope you had understood.
     
    Well I'm thinking about it!
  183. @res

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    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.
  184. res says:
    @phil
    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    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.
  185. 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.

    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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    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.
  186. @AP

    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.

    “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?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    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.
  187. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @phil
    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.

    [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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    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.
  188. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto
    CanSpeccy,

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

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

    Well I’m thinking about it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    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.
  189. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    "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.

    "

    “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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "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.
  190. @CanSpeccy

    Sorry, this comment is really confused, i hope you had understood.
     
    Well I'm thinking about it!

    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.

    Read More
  191. res says:
    @RaceRealist88
    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.

    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.

    Read More
  192. 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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    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..."
  193. res 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.
     
    "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.

    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.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    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?

    , @CanSpeccy
    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)
  194. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    [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.

    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.

    Read More
  195. @res

    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
     

    It was for me Res?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    It was trying to explain your behavior to RaceRealist88.
  196. @CanSpeccy

    I hope you can unde