The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Thompson Archive
Men 4 Points Ahead?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Mankind Quarterly vol 58 no 1

Sex differences are in the news. A male Google employee reviewed some of the literature on the topic in the context of his workplace practices, and got sacked. A book questioning the role of testosterone in sex differences, and more generally the veracity of innate biological sex differences, got the Royal Society Science Book prize, though it was not reviewed by Royal Society Fellows expert in that area of knowledge. More generally, there are frequent news items about the lack of women in STEM subjects, in technology jobs and in corporate boardrooms, and these discussions often blame a glass ceiling of misogyny impeding women’s progress. Meanwhile, with rather less publicity, Prof Richard Lynn has revisited his 1994 paper in the light of recent research, and invited critics to take his finding apart.

As Editor Gerhard Meisenberg comments:

In this issue of Mankind Quarterly, Richard Lynn presents a data-rich summary of his developmental theory, followed by 10 comments by scholars working in the field and a reply to the comments. Many of the commentators add pieces of empirical evidence to the puzzle of sex differences, while others propose theoretical alternatives or refinements to the developmental theory. Taken together, the target article and comments offer a fairly representative overview of the current status of research on cognitive sex differences and the theoretical approaches used by different researchers in the field.

Here are the papers:

Sex Differences in Intelligence: The Developmental Theory. Richard Lynn
Male and Female Balance Sheet. James R. Flynn
Counting is not Measuring: Comment on Richard Lynn’s Developmental Theory of Sex Differences in Intelligence. Roberto Colom
Common Paradoxes in the Study of Sex Differences in Intelligence. Helmuth Nyborg
Cognitive Sex Differences: Evolution and History. David Becker and Heiner Rindermann
The Male Brain, Testosterone and Sex Differences in Professional Achievement. Edward Dutton
Sex Differences in Intelligence: Developmental Origin Yes, Jensen Effect No. Gerhard Meisenberg
Sex Differences in Self-Estimated Intelligence, Competitiveness and Risk-Taking. Adrian Furnham
Sex Differences in Intelligence: A Genetics Perspective. Davide Piffer
Presumption and Prejudice: Quotas May Solve Some Problems,but Create Many More.
Guy Madison
Sex Differences in Cognitively Demanding Games: Poker, Backgammon and Mahjong.
Heitor B.F. Fernandes
Sex Differences in the Performance of Professional Go Players. Mingrui Wang
Sex Differences in Intelligence: Reply to Comments. Richard Lynn

Subscriptions to Mankind Quarterly here: http://www.mankindquarterly.org/subscribe

Prof Lynn begins with the following observation:

It is a paradox that males have a larger average brain size than females, that brain size is positively associated with intelligence, and yet numerous experts have asserted that there is no sex difference in intelligence. This paper presents the developmental theory of sex differences in intelligence as a solution to this problem. This states that boys and girls have about the same IQ up to the age of 15 years but from the age of 16 the average IQ of males becomes higher than that of females with an advantage increasing to approximately 4 IQ points in adulthood.

Lynn goes on to show that most experts in the field assert that there are no sex differences in intelligence, or that such differences that exist cancel each other out. He then goes on to consider the obvious anomaly, that since brain size is related to intelligence, and men have larger brains than women, they ought to be more intelligent.

Pakkenberg and Gundersen (1997) reported that men have an average of four billion more neurons than women, a difference of 16 percent. Further data showing that men have more neurons than women, have been given by Pelvig et al. (2008).

Lynn then explains how he made his prediction about higher male intelligence:

To calculate the magnitude of the higher adult male IQ that would be predicted from the larger male brain size I took Ankney’s figure of the male-female difference in brain size expressed in standard deviation units of 0.78d and Willerman et al.’s (1991) estimate of the correlation between brain size and intelligence of 0.35. These figures would give adult males a higher average IQ of 0.78 multiplied by 0.35 = .27d = 4.0 IQ points. In my 1994 paper I presented data showing adult male advantages of 1.7 IQ points on verbal ability, 2.1 IQ points on verbal and non-verbal reasoning ability, and 7.5 IQ points on spatial, giving an average male advantage among adults of 3.8 IQ points and thus very close to the predicted advantage of 4.0 IQ points. I published further data for this male advantage in Lynn (1998, 1999). The male advantages given by Meisenberg (2009) given in Table 1 of 0.42d for whites and 0.30d for blacks are reasonably consistent with these results.

Eysenck accepted my thesis that men have a 4 points higher IQ than women and calculated that this advantage combined with the greater male variance of a standard deviation of 15 for men and 14 for women would produce 55 men and 5 women per 10,000 with an IQ of 160 and above, a ratio of 10:1. The same point has been made more recently by Nyborg (2015, p. 51), who presents data for a male advantage of 3.9 IQ points among American white 17 year olds and calculates that this advantage gives men a ratio of 5:1 to women at an IQ of 145 (approximately one per 300 males).

You may remember that I played around with these figures showing the male/female ratios which resulted from different assumptions about male/female differences in intelligence, and male/female differences in standard deviations.

http://www.unz.com/jthompson/womens-brains

Back to Lynn.

Table 1 shows how, as male brains become bigger their intelligence advantage grows bigger.

Lynn development of male advantage

In fact, even on the children’s version of the Wechsler (ages 6 to 16) there is a male advantage, and clear sex differences in the four indexes of ability, girls showing a processing speed advantage. As Lynn wryly observes, everyone has been wrong that there are no sex differences on the Wechsler which is a broad test of abilities, administered face to face and thus able to monitor engagement and effort. Furthermore, he has been wrong that sex differences do not show up till 16. They are present before that.

Lynn development wisc diffs

On the adult Wechsler, over 33 studies show that there is a clear pattern of male advantage, equivalent to 3.8 IQ points.

Lynn development table 5

The more detailed nature of adult sex differences in ability are shown in Table 6

Lynn development table 6 standardization

Note that these differences are present even in the standardization samples of the test (shown with an asterisk), a finding the publishers are reluctant to publicize, and which Lynn only obtained by being the first to ask them for the data. That means that the Wechsler has found a sex difference but then standardized it away, so that when a clinician looks up results in the manual tables, an inherent sex difference is hidden. Something of a scandal, to my mind.

In fact, for a long time test constructors have worked to minimize male advantage, omitting tasks on which they had better scores, such as spatial perception and mental rotation of shapes, and mechanical knowledge (10 IQ difference for the latter).

Lynn summarizes:

The median male advantage of 3.6 IQ points on the WAIS Full Scale IQ in all 33 samples is a disconfirmation of the assertions by Halpern (2000, p. 91), Anderson (2004, p. 829) and Haier et al. (2004, p.1) that there is no sex difference on the WAIS Full Scale IQ. It is also a disconfirmation of Halpern’s (2012, p. 115) assertion that in the standardization sample of the American WAIS IV “the overall IQ score does not show sex differences”.

Turning to sex differences in high achievement, Lynn notes:

Howard reported that in 2012 there were 1324 men and 26 women Chess grandmasters and over the years 1975 to 2014 there was a male advantage of about one standard deviation in the performance of the top 10 and top 50 of all international players. He concluded that higher male ability is the most plausible explanation for the greater number of men among top Chess players: “Males score higher on average in visuospatial abilities and many more males score at the upper IQ extreme” and that the male predominance in Chess is “probably partly innate” (p. 219-20). He was right that the much greater number of men with high IQs is part of the explanation for their much greater number of among top Chess players.

There is much more in this paper, which you can read for yourselves, but my feeling is that Lynn has made a strong case for a male advantage in intelligence, and critics must now engage him on the detailed results he presents.

Have they done so? That is enough for now. Later I will talk about the replies to his paper contained in the special issue, and also draw attention to the non-replies, on the Sherlock Holmes principle that the dogs that do not bark are also worthy of attention.

Note: The cover shows a netsuke of Go players, carved by the 18th Century master Ogasawara Issai. Subscriptions for you or your affiliated library: http://www.mankindquarterly.org/subscribe

As an introductory offer, read the whole edition free here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3c4TxciNeJZdkR6V3NJYWcwdE0

 
• Category: Science • Tags: Gender, IQ 
Hide 393 CommentsLeave a Comment
393 Comments to "Men 4 Points Ahead?"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. dearieme says:

    “omitting tasks on which [men] had better scores, such as spatial perception and mental rotation of shapes, and mechanical knowledge”. I’m not surprised that men have better mechanical knowledge given their conspicuously greater interest in things mechanical. Are there other topics on which women might have better scores but which are not routinely measured in tests? F’rinstance, dealing with babies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    The one that leaps to my mind is methods and abilities for dealing with social networks. Here are some papers in this general area, but I haven't really engaged much with the material: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078663
    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01214

    Although biased IMO, Hyde's collection of meta-analyses (much discussed during l'affaire Damore) is a good starting reference for sex differences of a wide variety of traits: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16173891
    , @Serg Derbst
    Breast feeding.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /jthompson/men-4-points-ahead/#comment-2032547
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Medicine?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Affirmatively no. Good medical diagnosis requires primarily two things: good knowledge/memory and good pattern recognition. Men are slightly better at the former and appreciably better at the latter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. res says:
    @dearieme
    "omitting tasks on which [men] had better scores, such as spatial perception and mental rotation of shapes, and mechanical knowledge". I'm not surprised that men have better mechanical knowledge given their conspicuously greater interest in things mechanical. Are there other topics on which women might have better scores but which are not routinely measured in tests? F'rinstance, dealing with babies.

    The one that leaps to my mind is methods and abilities for dealing with social networks. Here are some papers in this general area, but I haven’t really engaged much with the material: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078663

    https://www.nature.com/articles/srep01214

    Although biased IMO, Hyde’s collection of meta-analyses (much discussed during l’affaire Damore) is a good starting reference for sex differences of a wide variety of traits: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16173891

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Agree that we should sample the broadest range of intellectual tasks. Hyde smooths away differences, I think, though there are many areas where differences are small, and never a bone of contention. I haven’t looked to see if there are real differences in the perception of emotional states, the potentially active part of the “emotional intelligence” mix, of which the passive part is probable personality differences, not intellectual ones.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. res says:

    Thanks for the interesting post, Dr. Thompson! And thanks also to you and Mankind Quarterly for the generous introductory offer. So much to read…

    There were some large differences in results above. One that caught my eye was this pair in Table 5:
    Country Test N FS V P Reference
    USA W-Bell 235 0.59 0.63 0.35 Strange & Palmer, 1953
    USA W-Bell 153 0.20 0.52 -0.35 Norman, 1953

    That performance IQ difference is striking given the same country, test, and year. Any thoughts?

    One thing I wanted to double check. In his paper Lynn talks about controlling for body size when looking at brain size. But if I understand correctly he did not make that control in Table 1 above. Is there any way of seeing the controlled for data? The text of the paper mentions that there are relative body size changes happening at the same time.

    Does anyone know of a good discussion of techniques for controlling for body size? At some point I’ll try chasing down Lynn’s references–”confirmed when controlled for body size by
    Ankney (1992) and Rushton (1992)”–but given how many possible controls there are (e.g. what exponent to use) it would be good to have a balanced discussion.

    I took a quick look at those references. Links: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290013H

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290017L

    I only found a PDF for the latter. Page 6 discusses corrections (e.g. exponents) and Table 3 and Figure 1 provide fairly consistent (I am guessing the small sample size caused the variation for “Mongoloid females”) corrected differences. However, I don’t see any takeaway concerning “here is our recommended way to correct for size differences.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Quick comment on Table 5. Sample sizes are probably too small there. WAIS is a more healthy size, and the d's are smaller.
    "Controlling for body size". Why?, is the big question. Between species probably wise, but sex differences in size are not all that big, so in some ways I would say: forget the correction, just measure the brain size. Whales are different.
    , @Santoculto
    Convergent (((psycho))) cognitive evolution/adaptation.

    Again the same subject...

    Or mister Thom is naive and think (((leftists))) lies or misunderstood this issues by good faith or he is trying keep his audience entertained (and know more about this [[[political issues]]] than actually show).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @res
    Thanks for the interesting post, Dr. Thompson! And thanks also to you and Mankind Quarterly for the generous introductory offer. So much to read...

    There were some large differences in results above. One that caught my eye was this pair in Table 5:
    Country Test N FS V P Reference
    USA W-Bell 235 0.59 0.63 0.35 Strange & Palmer, 1953
    USA W-Bell 153 0.20 0.52 -0.35 Norman, 1953

    That performance IQ difference is striking given the same country, test, and year. Any thoughts?

    One thing I wanted to double check. In his paper Lynn talks about controlling for body size when looking at brain size. But if I understand correctly he did not make that control in Table 1 above. Is there any way of seeing the controlled for data? The text of the paper mentions that there are relative body size changes happening at the same time.

    Does anyone know of a good discussion of techniques for controlling for body size? At some point I'll try chasing down Lynn's references--"confirmed when controlled for body size by
    Ankney (1992) and Rushton (1992)"--but given how many possible controls there are (e.g. what exponent to use) it would be good to have a balanced discussion.

    I took a quick look at those references. Links: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290013H
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290017L
    I only found a PDF for the latter. Page 6 discusses corrections (e.g. exponents) and Table 3 and Figure 1 provide fairly consistent (I am guessing the small sample size caused the variation for "Mongoloid females") corrected differences. However, I don't see any takeaway concerning "here is our recommended way to correct for size differences."

    Quick comment on Table 5. Sample sizes are probably too small there. WAIS is a more healthy size, and the d’s are smaller.
    “Controlling for body size”. Why?, is the big question. Between species probably wise, but sex differences in size are not all that big, so in some ways I would say: forget the correction, just measure the brain size. Whales are different.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    “Controlling for body size”. Why?, is the big question. Between species probably wise, but sex differences in size are not all that big, so in some ways I would say: forget the correction, just measure the brain size. Whales are different.
     
    There is something to be said for that, but I don't like the introduction of bias in the direction Lynn is arguing for. Let me try to estimate the effect size of different body weights and compare it to the magnitude of the raw sex difference.

    Some relevant excerpts from Rushton 1992:

    sex was highly significant, F( 1,6313) = 6,634.18, p < .001; men have, on average, larger cranial capacities than do women (weighted Ms = 1,462, 1,266 cma; unweighted Ms = 1,471, 1,282 cm3).
    ...
    On average, women in good physical condition (which is assumed to be true of military personnel) have about 20% of their body weight as fat whereas only 10% of male body weight is fat. Thus, to account for this difference in largely noninnervated tissue, I subtracted 20% from the body weight of each woman and 10% from that of each man. The new value was termed AdjustedWeight. The exponent in the allometric relation between body weight and mammalian brain weight is not 1.0 (Jerison, 1982) and ranges from .20 in comparisons of similar species to .67 in comparisons of diverse species (Pagel & Harvey, 1989).
    ...
    After adjusting for the effects of stature and weight, and then race, rank, or sex, Mongoloids averaged 1,416, Caucasoids 1,380, and Negroids 1,359 cm3; officers averaged 1,393 and enlisted personnel 1,375 cm3; and men averaged 1,442 and women 1,332 cm 3. None of the adjustments shown in Table 2 altered the overall pattern of the results (see Table 3, p. 408).

     

    So we are looking at a sex brain size ratio difference after controls of 0.924 compared to the Table 1 (Lynn, above, I think from Rushton weighted 1266/1462) ratio of 0.866

    This indicates that of the initial (raw) 13.4% difference 5.8% is eliminated by the various controls (not just size though). So the change from controlling for other variables accounts for 43% of the raw difference. I think that is worth worrying about.

    Let's look at this from another angle. Assume the 0.20 similar species weight coefficient and use Rushton's men-10% and women-20% weight idea. Using US average M/F heights of 5'9" and 5'3.5": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide
    and looking at the middle of medium framed here: http://www.healthchecksystems.com/heightweightchart.htm
    we get M/F weights of 154/129.5 lbs
    Giving us a ratio of (129.5*0.8)^0.2 / (154*0.9)^0.2 = 0.9435

    Which IMHO is shockingly close (5.65% lower) to the 5.8% estimated above (and this was my only computation). Though the numbers aren't exactly comparable I think they indicate similar effect sizes.

    Given this I think it is necessary to correct for male/female body size in group differences (even more so when looking at individual differences which can be much larger) for brain size.

    P.S. Ankney 1992 looks like an important reference in Rushton 1992, I made a mistake above and the PDF is available at libgen: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290013H
    Has some good plots of brain size vs. body size (e.g. weight, surface area) for both men and women.

    P.P.S. The 0.2 exponent number comes from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2740904
    PDF also at libgen. I think Rushton got the 0.2 exponent from the bottom of the second page.

    , @EH
    I think the correction for body size should not be by weight, or even volume, but body surface area (which should correlate more closely to nerve ending numbers), with possibly an additional correction for any difference in surface densities of nerve endings between men and women. Likewise, the relevant brain size / body size ratio should be: cortex area / skin area, or more precisely cortical neurons / body nerve endings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. res says:
    @James Thompson
    Quick comment on Table 5. Sample sizes are probably too small there. WAIS is a more healthy size, and the d's are smaller.
    "Controlling for body size". Why?, is the big question. Between species probably wise, but sex differences in size are not all that big, so in some ways I would say: forget the correction, just measure the brain size. Whales are different.

    “Controlling for body size”. Why?, is the big question. Between species probably wise, but sex differences in size are not all that big, so in some ways I would say: forget the correction, just measure the brain size. Whales are different.

    There is something to be said for that, but I don’t like the introduction of bias in the direction Lynn is arguing for. Let me try to estimate the effect size of different body weights and compare it to the magnitude of the raw sex difference.

    Some relevant excerpts from Rushton 1992:

    sex was highly significant, F( 1,6313) = 6,634.18, p < .001; men have, on average, larger cranial capacities than do women (weighted Ms = 1,462, 1,266 cma; unweighted Ms = 1,471, 1,282 cm3).

    On average, women in good physical condition (which is assumed to be true of military personnel) have about 20% of their body weight as fat whereas only 10% of male body weight is fat. Thus, to account for this difference in largely noninnervated tissue, I subtracted 20% from the body weight of each woman and 10% from that of each man. The new value was termed AdjustedWeight. The exponent in the allometric relation between body weight and mammalian brain weight is not 1.0 (Jerison, 1982) and ranges from .20 in comparisons of similar species to .67 in comparisons of diverse species (Pagel & Harvey, 1989).

    After adjusting for the effects of stature and weight, and then race, rank, or sex, Mongoloids averaged 1,416, Caucasoids 1,380, and Negroids 1,359 cm3; officers averaged 1,393 and enlisted personnel 1,375 cm3; and men averaged 1,442 and women 1,332 cm 3. None of the adjustments shown in Table 2 altered the overall pattern of the results (see Table 3, p. 408).

    So we are looking at a sex brain size ratio difference after controls of 0.924 compared to the Table 1 (Lynn, above, I think from Rushton weighted 1266/1462) ratio of 0.866

    This indicates that of the initial (raw) 13.4% difference 5.8% is eliminated by the various controls (not just size though). So the change from controlling for other variables accounts for 43% of the raw difference. I think that is worth worrying about.

    Let’s look at this from another angle. Assume the 0.20 similar species weight coefficient and use Rushton’s men-10% and women-20% weight idea. Using US average M/F heights of 5’9″ and 5’3.5″: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide
    and looking at the middle of medium framed here: http://www.healthchecksystems.com/heightweightchart.htm
    we get M/F weights of 154/129.5 lbs
    Giving us a ratio of (129.5*0.8)^0.2 / (154*0.9)^0.2 = 0.9435

    Which IMHO is shockingly close (5.65% lower) to the 5.8% estimated above (and this was my only computation). Though the numbers aren’t exactly comparable I think they indicate similar effect sizes.

    Given this I think it is necessary to correct for male/female body size in group differences (even more so when looking at individual differences which can be much larger) for brain size.

    P.S. Ankney 1992 looks like an important reference in Rushton 1992, I made a mistake above and the PDF is available at libgen: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290013H
    Has some good plots of brain size vs. body size (e.g. weight, surface area) for both men and women.

    P.P.S. The 0.2 exponent number comes from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2740904
    PDF also at libgen. I think Rushton got the 0.2 exponent from the bottom of the second page.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Thanks for these. I remember the chain of corrections, and I agree that it gives the most conservative estimate of what the real sex difference in brain sizes might be. Still have a lurking doubt about the justification, though, but I can't advance my argument much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. AP says:

    Jensen claimed that there were no significant male-female IQ differences (unlike racial differences) because although females brains are on average smaller they are also more efficiently organized (neurons packed more densely) than are male brains, to an extent that wipes out differences in intelligence. He wrote that there was a strong correlation between brain size and intelligence within each gender group (females with larger brains tending to be more intelligent than those with smaller ones; likewise for males) but no such correlation between groups. He also speculated that some of the increased male brain volume may involve areas not directly linked to intelligence, such as spatial ability (being able to tell where one is) and that there may be differences in neuron efficiency.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Neurone density argument considered and rejected by Lynn in his paper. No evidence for it. However, extra male brain may explain better spatial abilities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. EH says:

    Off-topic but of general interest:

    The normal distribution has long been known to not match the actual distribution of intelligence in the tails, underpredicting the true number of high scorers. The true distribution is still a matter of debate – I read many years ago that it might be a Pearson type IV distribution (of which I know nothing), but more often the log-normal distribution is mentioned as being close to the true intelligence curve. While the log-normal distribution is included in standard spreadsheet programs, one can’t just plug in a 15 s.d. and a 100 mean, which makes it less convenient for most people.

    Here are the conversions:
    The equivalent log-normal mean of 100 is: LN(100)-0.5*LN((15/100)^2+1) = 4.5940
    (LN being the natural log function, not an abbreviation for log-normal)

    The equivalent log-normal standard deviation of 15 is: (LN((15/100)^2+1))^0.5 = 0.14917

    (I seem to recall reading that an s.d. of 16 instead of 15 actually has some fortuitous properties for log-normal IQ, but can’t remember the details.)

    As an example of using this, here is the Excel/OpenOffice formula for computing the equivalent-rarity normal-distribution IQ score from a known log-normal score, A1:
    =NORMINV(1-(1-(LOGNORMDIST(A1;LN(100)-0.5*LN((15/100)^2+1);(LN((15/100)^2+1))^0.5;1)));100;15)

    Playing around with a table of converted log-normal IQ scores, I found some memorable regularities:
    *log-normal and normally-distributed IQ scores are equal to within +/- 2.5 points from 76 – 130, and +/- 1 point from 82 – 122 (on the log-normal scale).

    *Above IQ 116, a log-normal (true) intelligence score is always higher than a normal IQ score of the same rarity in the population.

    *The difference between log-normal (true) scores and normal IQ scores is to a good approximation:
    2 points at 125 IQ on normal scale,
    5 at 135,
    10 at 145,
    15
    (16) at 155, and
    20 at 160.
    -which gives an easily-remembered rule of thumb.

    Just to give an example: a normal-distribution 4-sigma anything, such as a 160 IQ, is about 1 in 30,000. In reality, with log-lormal distribution of intelligence, we should expect to find a score of 20 points higher, or 180 in about 1 in 30,000 people. The normal distribution would predict on the order of one-one-thousandth as many people with a score of 180, 1 in 20M, (or 30M for 181).

    The gap between equal-rarity log-normal scores and normal scores continues to widen at higher normal IQ scores:
    25 at 166 (1 in 200k),
    30 at 172 (1 in 1M),
    35 at 176 (1 in 5M),
    40 at 181 (1 in 30M) )

    Read More
    • Replies: @EH
    A follow-up: here former Mega Society (1 in 1M IQ) officer and NASA engineer Bob Seitz discusses the log-normal distribution and compares its predictions with the observations of Terman's famous study.

    I believe this what I was thinking of that said that there was a particular log-normal standard deviation that should be used, but it is 15, Seitz says.
    , @AnotherDad
    The log-normal bit--the question of what the distribution actually looks like is an interesting one. And I agree with you that the tails are indeed fatter than a normal distribution.


    But your IQ numbers aren't really interesting. IQ isn't an objective and real measure like say "height".

    An IQ score is precisely just where someone stands relative to other people based on a normal distribution and a particular mean and SD. Ex. a 145 IQ means precisely--that on this test--"hey you're smarter than 99.8% (whatever the 3SD number is) of a random collection of white people" and really nothing else. It doesn't matter what the underlying distribution actually is. That's what it means.

    It doesn't mean you're 45% smarter than the average person. On a typical IQ test--i.e. pretty tractable problems--the 145 person is getting pretty much everything right and the average person can't figure out a lot of questions or gets them wrong. We all know that the 145 person--all else being equal--will be way more valuable in most sorts of tasks\work. Depending on the cognitive demands the 145 guy will be anywhere from "a bit better" to "worth three regular guys" to--for the most demanding mental processes--essentially infinitely better.

    You could go about renaming 145 to 165 to try and highlight that such a person is really way way smarter than the average bear ... but it doesn't buy you much of anything. It's still not going to be a linear scale with each point the same extra dollop of "intelligence". And your new 165 IQ still won't be any sort of fair gauge about how much better the guy is than someone more average. IQ simply isn't a measure like height and there's no way to make it one.
    , @Harold
    The ‘actual’ distribution is not going to be well modelled by any clean mathematical function far enough into the tails.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. EH says:
    @EH
    Off-topic but of general interest:

    The normal distribution has long been known to not match the actual distribution of intelligence in the tails, underpredicting the true number of high scorers. The true distribution is still a matter of debate - I read many years ago that it might be a Pearson type IV distribution (of which I know nothing), but more often the log-normal distribution is mentioned as being close to the true intelligence curve. While the log-normal distribution is included in standard spreadsheet programs, one can't just plug in a 15 s.d. and a 100 mean, which makes it less convenient for most people.

    Here are the conversions:
    The equivalent log-normal mean of 100 is: LN(100)-0.5*LN((15/100)^2+1) = 4.5940
    (LN being the natural log function, not an abbreviation for log-normal)

    The equivalent log-normal standard deviation of 15 is: (LN((15/100)^2+1))^0.5 = 0.14917

    (I seem to recall reading that an s.d. of 16 instead of 15 actually has some fortuitous properties for log-normal IQ, but can't remember the details.)

    As an example of using this, here is the Excel/OpenOffice formula for computing the equivalent-rarity normal-distribution IQ score from a known log-normal score, A1:
    =NORMINV(1-(1-(LOGNORMDIST(A1;LN(100)-0.5*LN((15/100)^2+1);(LN((15/100)^2+1))^0.5;1)));100;15)

    Playing around with a table of converted log-normal IQ scores, I found some memorable regularities:
    *log-normal and normally-distributed IQ scores are equal to within +/- 2.5 points from 76 – 130, and +/- 1 point from 82 – 122 (on the log-normal scale).

    *Above IQ 116, a log-normal (true) intelligence score is always higher than a normal IQ score of the same rarity in the population.

    *The difference between log-normal (true) scores and normal IQ scores is to a good approximation:
    2 points at 125 IQ on normal scale,
    5 at 135,
    10 at 145,
    15
    (16) at 155, and
    20 at 160.
    -which gives an easily-remembered rule of thumb.


    Just to give an example: a normal-distribution 4-sigma anything, such as a 160 IQ, is about 1 in 30,000. In reality, with log-lormal distribution of intelligence, we should expect to find a score of 20 points higher, or 180 in about 1 in 30,000 people. The normal distribution would predict on the order of one-one-thousandth as many people with a score of 180, 1 in 20M, (or 30M for 181).

    The gap between equal-rarity log-normal scores and normal scores continues to widen at higher normal IQ scores:
    25 at 166 (1 in 200k),
    30 at 172 (1 in 1M),
    35 at 176 (1 in 5M),
    40 at 181 (1 in 30M) )

    A follow-up: here former Mega Society (1 in 1M IQ) officer and NASA engineer Bob Seitz discusses the log-normal distribution and compares its predictions with the observations of Terman’s famous study.

    I believe this what I was thinking of that said that there was a particular log-normal standard deviation that should be used, but it is 15, Seitz says.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    One issue is that the Terman study used ratio IQs. I think the non-normal observation there was part of the impetus towards deviation IQs. I seem to recall someone seeing non-normality in deviation IQs, but don't have the reference at hand.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification gives a good list of which tests use ratio/deviation IQs.

    P.S. I see they talked about ratio and deviation IQs at your link, but I don't see a clear conclusion about the true distribution of current deviation IQs.
    , @James Thompson
    Thanks. I regard this as on topic, and very interesting. Real distributions often deviate from normality anyway, either because of adverse living conditions/disease as in the Glasgow samples early in 20th Century, and just as a matter of course in the Isle of Wight studies in the 1960s. Measuring high intelligence is problematical, because standard approaches become strained. One tends to move to rankings given by other bright people. Fermi's remark about von Neumann, for example. I think all this is relevant to "glass ceiling" type arguments, and also to using La Griffe du Lion's techniques for calculating the group mean intelligence from which exceptional achievers are drawn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @res

    “Controlling for body size”. Why?, is the big question. Between species probably wise, but sex differences in size are not all that big, so in some ways I would say: forget the correction, just measure the brain size. Whales are different.
     
    There is something to be said for that, but I don't like the introduction of bias in the direction Lynn is arguing for. Let me try to estimate the effect size of different body weights and compare it to the magnitude of the raw sex difference.

    Some relevant excerpts from Rushton 1992:

    sex was highly significant, F( 1,6313) = 6,634.18, p < .001; men have, on average, larger cranial capacities than do women (weighted Ms = 1,462, 1,266 cma; unweighted Ms = 1,471, 1,282 cm3).
    ...
    On average, women in good physical condition (which is assumed to be true of military personnel) have about 20% of their body weight as fat whereas only 10% of male body weight is fat. Thus, to account for this difference in largely noninnervated tissue, I subtracted 20% from the body weight of each woman and 10% from that of each man. The new value was termed AdjustedWeight. The exponent in the allometric relation between body weight and mammalian brain weight is not 1.0 (Jerison, 1982) and ranges from .20 in comparisons of similar species to .67 in comparisons of diverse species (Pagel & Harvey, 1989).
    ...
    After adjusting for the effects of stature and weight, and then race, rank, or sex, Mongoloids averaged 1,416, Caucasoids 1,380, and Negroids 1,359 cm3; officers averaged 1,393 and enlisted personnel 1,375 cm3; and men averaged 1,442 and women 1,332 cm 3. None of the adjustments shown in Table 2 altered the overall pattern of the results (see Table 3, p. 408).

     

    So we are looking at a sex brain size ratio difference after controls of 0.924 compared to the Table 1 (Lynn, above, I think from Rushton weighted 1266/1462) ratio of 0.866

    This indicates that of the initial (raw) 13.4% difference 5.8% is eliminated by the various controls (not just size though). So the change from controlling for other variables accounts for 43% of the raw difference. I think that is worth worrying about.

    Let's look at this from another angle. Assume the 0.20 similar species weight coefficient and use Rushton's men-10% and women-20% weight idea. Using US average M/F heights of 5'9" and 5'3.5": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide
    and looking at the middle of medium framed here: http://www.healthchecksystems.com/heightweightchart.htm
    we get M/F weights of 154/129.5 lbs
    Giving us a ratio of (129.5*0.8)^0.2 / (154*0.9)^0.2 = 0.9435

    Which IMHO is shockingly close (5.65% lower) to the 5.8% estimated above (and this was my only computation). Though the numbers aren't exactly comparable I think they indicate similar effect sizes.

    Given this I think it is necessary to correct for male/female body size in group differences (even more so when looking at individual differences which can be much larger) for brain size.

    P.S. Ankney 1992 looks like an important reference in Rushton 1992, I made a mistake above and the PDF is available at libgen: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290013H
    Has some good plots of brain size vs. body size (e.g. weight, surface area) for both men and women.

    P.P.S. The 0.2 exponent number comes from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2740904
    PDF also at libgen. I think Rushton got the 0.2 exponent from the bottom of the second page.

    Thanks for these. I remember the chain of corrections, and I agree that it gives the most conservative estimate of what the real sex difference in brain sizes might be. Still have a lurking doubt about the justification, though, but I can’t advance my argument much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. EH says:
    @James Thompson
    Quick comment on Table 5. Sample sizes are probably too small there. WAIS is a more healthy size, and the d's are smaller.
    "Controlling for body size". Why?, is the big question. Between species probably wise, but sex differences in size are not all that big, so in some ways I would say: forget the correction, just measure the brain size. Whales are different.

    I think the correction for body size should not be by weight, or even volume, but body surface area (which should correlate more closely to nerve ending numbers), with possibly an additional correction for any difference in surface densities of nerve endings between men and women. Likewise, the relevant brain size / body size ratio should be: cortex area / skin area, or more precisely cortical neurons / body nerve endings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Ankney (1992) (linked above) looks at brain mass vs. height and body surface area. There are clear trends in the plots, but all of the correlations were ~0.2 so not that large. One nice thing in the plots is he indicated both the male and female means which helps estimate how the sex difference compares to the mean body difference.

    He saw less effect from body size correction than I estimated above:

    Thus, for individuals of average height, correcting for body size only reduces the absolute difference in brain mass of men and women by about 25%, that is, from about 135 g to about 100 g.

     

    Here is what he concluded overall:

    To conclude, if intelligence is truly causally linked to brain size in humans, we are faced with a conundrum, that is, women have relatively smaller brains than men, yet the sexes apparently do not differ in general intelligence. I have proposed four solutions for this:
    1. Some unknown effect related to differences in body size.
    2. IQ tests are biased to favor women.
    3. Women's brains are more efficient than those of men.
    4. The sex difference in relative brain size relates to those intellectual abilities at which men excel.
    Perhaps naively, I dismiss the first two, and as an "adaptationist," I discount the third; I therefore favor the fourth one. Regardless of particular explanation, further research into the ways in which male and female brains differ could provide understanding of the derivation of what we call intelligence.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. The Reader’s Digest back in the 1970s reported on a survey/study which showed that both sexes were quite comfortable with marriages where the woman was taller, older, richer, and many other traits contrary to stereotype.

    The one exception was the deep pessimism of both sexes toward a union where the woman was the smarter partner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @curt dunkel
    Reg, might you have any further information? I am very curious about this possibility. Thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. res says:
    @EH
    I think the correction for body size should not be by weight, or even volume, but body surface area (which should correlate more closely to nerve ending numbers), with possibly an additional correction for any difference in surface densities of nerve endings between men and women. Likewise, the relevant brain size / body size ratio should be: cortex area / skin area, or more precisely cortical neurons / body nerve endings.

    Ankney (1992) (linked above) looks at brain mass vs. height and body surface area. There are clear trends in the plots, but all of the correlations were ~0.2 so not that large. One nice thing in the plots is he indicated both the male and female means which helps estimate how the sex difference compares to the mean body difference.

    He saw less effect from body size correction than I estimated above:

    Thus, for individuals of average height, correcting for body size only reduces the absolute difference in brain mass of men and women by about 25%, that is, from about 135 g to about 100 g.

    Here is what he concluded overall:

    To conclude, if intelligence is truly causally linked to brain size in humans, we are faced with a conundrum, that is, women have relatively smaller brains than men, yet the sexes apparently do not differ in general intelligence. I have proposed four solutions for this:
    1. Some unknown effect related to differences in body size.
    2. IQ tests are biased to favor women.
    3. Women’s brains are more efficient than those of men.
    4. The sex difference in relative brain size relates to those intellectual abilities at which men excel.
    Perhaps naively, I dismiss the first two, and as an “adaptationist,” I discount the third; I therefore favor the fourth one. Regardless of particular explanation, further research into the ways in which male and female brains differ could provide understanding of the derivation of what we call intelligence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. res says:
    @EH
    A follow-up: here former Mega Society (1 in 1M IQ) officer and NASA engineer Bob Seitz discusses the log-normal distribution and compares its predictions with the observations of Terman's famous study.

    I believe this what I was thinking of that said that there was a particular log-normal standard deviation that should be used, but it is 15, Seitz says.

    One issue is that the Terman study used ratio IQs. I think the non-normal observation there was part of the impetus towards deviation IQs. I seem to recall someone seeing non-normality in deviation IQs, but don’t have the reference at hand.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification gives a good list of which tests use ratio/deviation IQs.

    P.S. I see they talked about ratio and deviation IQs at your link, but I don’t see a clear conclusion about the true distribution of current deviation IQs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EH
    Deviation IQs are by definition normally distributed, but in the tails they aren't equal-interval scales, the marks on the scale are effectively spaced more widely, each deviation IQ point around 160 represents a greater difference in intelligence than an IQ point near 100.

    The age-ratio scale has always seemed not only confusing, but a bit suspect to me since:
    * many people think that they equate or at least closely relate to the deviation scores used on modern tests - I'm skeptical
    * many think that they are stable over age - they aren't for high scorers since the age-equivalent scale tops out at around age 16
    * age-ratio scores are easily confused with ratio-scale scores (equal-interval scales with a true zero such as the the Rasch CSS scale on the Stanford-Binet (SB5)).
    * implicitly people think that intelligence increases linearly with age, it actually increases with the logarithm of age when measured on a scale such as the CSS.

    One tidbit indicating a fat-tailed distribution: according to Use of the SB5 in the Assessment of High Abilities a Riverside Publishing service bulletin by Deborah Ruf, in the norming of the SB5 the highest FSIQ CSS found was 592, with 510-515 being the average adult score. (p.9-10). On the block-rotation subtest (slide 19), at least, the adult s.d. is about 8.5 CSS points over to mean to +3 sigma range, which means that 592 score is something like 9 standard deviations out, and even if the FSIQ s.d is much bigger, that's still equivalent to an IQ of over 200 with an expected rarity of from 1 in at least tens of billions to basically "never".

    [more later if I have time, Dr. Thompson's point about how La Griffe du Lion's Method of Thresholds is affected by a LN distribution is important]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Reg Cæsar
    The Reader's Digest back in the 1970s reported on a survey/study which showed that both sexes were quite comfortable with marriages where the woman was taller, older, richer, and many other traits contrary to stereotype.

    The one exception was the deep pessimism of both sexes toward a union where the woman was the smarter partner.

    Reg, might you have any further information? I am very curious about this possibility. Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @AP
    Jensen claimed that there were no significant male-female IQ differences (unlike racial differences) because although females brains are on average smaller they are also more efficiently organized (neurons packed more densely) than are male brains, to an extent that wipes out differences in intelligence. He wrote that there was a strong correlation between brain size and intelligence within each gender group (females with larger brains tending to be more intelligent than those with smaller ones; likewise for males) but no such correlation between groups. He also speculated that some of the increased male brain volume may involve areas not directly linked to intelligence, such as spatial ability (being able to tell where one is) and that there may be differences in neuron efficiency.

    Neurone density argument considered and rejected by Lynn in his paper. No evidence for it. However, extra male brain may explain better spatial abilities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @EH
    A follow-up: here former Mega Society (1 in 1M IQ) officer and NASA engineer Bob Seitz discusses the log-normal distribution and compares its predictions with the observations of Terman's famous study.

    I believe this what I was thinking of that said that there was a particular log-normal standard deviation that should be used, but it is 15, Seitz says.

    Thanks. I regard this as on topic, and very interesting. Real distributions often deviate from normality anyway, either because of adverse living conditions/disease as in the Glasgow samples early in 20th Century, and just as a matter of course in the Isle of Wight studies in the 1960s. Measuring high intelligence is problematical, because standard approaches become strained. One tends to move to rankings given by other bright people. Fermi’s remark about von Neumann, for example. I think all this is relevant to “glass ceiling” type arguments, and also to using La Griffe du Lion’s techniques for calculating the group mean intelligence from which exceptional achievers are drawn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "One tends to move to rankings given by other bright people." One of the best reasons to think that Maynard Keynes was a very bright fellow is that he was thought of as such in a Cambridge full of very bright physicists.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Do you know of any studies of the rather obvious problem that someone with the probable high processing speed implied by an 1Q of 190 (Six Sigmas as a young scientist friend said in reference to his peers) won't have equivalent superiority of speed in his interface equipment?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Following up the thoughts I have had and expressed about the unmeasured interface factor in assessing the performance advantages afforded by a very high IQ I think this is a related idea that I am willing to back with money.

    Consistently with programming computers successfully to play Chess or Go it would clearly be possible to program them to do the full battery of IQ tests. But it's not that simple procedure that I propose. What is needed is a hardware + software that attempts to model the human brain's processes and then is turned loose on the battery of IQ tests.

    Even with Model 1.1.1 it will be possible to start tweaking a little here and a little thete to see what effect the changes make on tests of varying g weighting.

    Maybe it shouĺd be started with an all software model and no non standard neural-systems simulating parts as a Proof of Concept.

    I could find money for such a project. Give me an address for yourself or get Ron to put you in touch with me.

    Does it have any theoretical fatal flaw or might it be useful?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. EH says:
    @res
    One issue is that the Terman study used ratio IQs. I think the non-normal observation there was part of the impetus towards deviation IQs. I seem to recall someone seeing non-normality in deviation IQs, but don't have the reference at hand.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification gives a good list of which tests use ratio/deviation IQs.

    P.S. I see they talked about ratio and deviation IQs at your link, but I don't see a clear conclusion about the true distribution of current deviation IQs.

    Deviation IQs are by definition normally distributed, but in the tails they aren’t equal-interval scales, the marks on the scale are effectively spaced more widely, each deviation IQ point around 160 represents a greater difference in intelligence than an IQ point near 100.

    The age-ratio scale has always seemed not only confusing, but a bit suspect to me since:
    * many people think that they equate or at least closely relate to the deviation scores used on modern tests – I’m skeptical
    * many think that they are stable over age – they aren’t for high scorers since the age-equivalent scale tops out at around age 16
    * age-ratio scores are easily confused with ratio-scale scores (equal-interval scales with a true zero such as the the Rasch CSS scale on the Stanford-Binet (SB5)).
    * implicitly people think that intelligence increases linearly with age, it actually increases with the logarithm of age when measured on a scale such as the CSS.

    One tidbit indicating a fat-tailed distribution: according to Use of the SB5 in the Assessment of High Abilities a Riverside Publishing service bulletin by Deborah Ruf, in the norming of the SB5 the highest FSIQ CSS found was 592, with 510-515 being the average adult score. (p.9-10). On the block-rotation subtest (slide 19), at least, the adult s.d. is about 8.5 CSS points over to mean to +3 sigma range, which means that 592 score is something like 9 standard deviations out, and even if the FSIQ s.d is much bigger, that’s still equivalent to an IQ of over 200 with an expected rarity of from 1 in at least tens of billions to basically “never”.

    [more later if I have time, Dr. Thompson's point about how La Griffe du Lion's Method of Thresholds is affected by a LN distribution is important]

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thank you for your very informative comment! That SB5 link is one of the best references I have seen on high IQ testing. In case anyone else is interested in your slide link, here are blog posts which address that whole series: http://www.iqscorner.com/search/label/Rasch
    The Applied Psychometrics 101 Reports and Briefs at the blog also look interesting.

    Deviation IQs are by definition normally distributed, but in the tails they aren’t equal-interval scales, the marks on the scale are effectively spaced more widely, each deviation IQ point around 160 represents a greater difference in intelligence than an IQ point near 100.
     
    I have never been sure how closely the definition matches the reality (of scores) given the difficulty of norming tests for exceptionally rare cases. Your second sentence is intriguing. Can you recommend any references that discuss the linearity of the relationship of deviation IQ points to "intelligence"? Is there a similar effect at the lower tail? Does anyone have access to SB5 CSS to IQ/EXIQ conversion information?

    One other thing which bothers me about the age ratio idea is the issue of differing rates of development. Has anyone attempted to analyze/correct for/quantify/measure this in the context of intelligence? Does brain development generally parallel other physical development?

    implicitly people think that intelligence increases linearly with age, it actually increases with the logarithm of age when measured on a scale such as the CSS.
     
    This idea was new to me, but makes perfect sense once I see it. Can you recommend any references that discuss this?

    P.S. I hope you have time later ; ) Thanks again!

    P.P.S. While I was searching on related topics I ran across this paper covering various SB5 composites and thought others might be interested: http://www.hmhco.com/~/media/sites/home/hmh-assessments/clinical/stanford-binet/pdf/sb5_asb_4.pdf
    and this paper with QQ plots for SB5 IQ scores: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4613563/
    Does anyone know of a distribution plot for SB5 CSS?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. dearieme says:
    @James Thompson
    Thanks. I regard this as on topic, and very interesting. Real distributions often deviate from normality anyway, either because of adverse living conditions/disease as in the Glasgow samples early in 20th Century, and just as a matter of course in the Isle of Wight studies in the 1960s. Measuring high intelligence is problematical, because standard approaches become strained. One tends to move to rankings given by other bright people. Fermi's remark about von Neumann, for example. I think all this is relevant to "glass ceiling" type arguments, and also to using La Griffe du Lion's techniques for calculating the group mean intelligence from which exceptional achievers are drawn.

    “One tends to move to rankings given by other bright people.” One of the best reasons to think that Maynard Keynes was a very bright fellow is that he was thought of as such in a Cambridge full of very bright physicists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Yes. Russell said that after debating anything with Keynes, his head ached.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @dearieme
    "One tends to move to rankings given by other bright people." One of the best reasons to think that Maynard Keynes was a very bright fellow is that he was thought of as such in a Cambridge full of very bright physicists.

    Yes. Russell said that after debating anything with Keynes, his head ached.

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

    Of all possible areas of achievement, why focus on chess grandmasters? What about, say, Fields Medal winners?

    While grandmasters are no dummies, it’s pretty well understood that their success has much more to do with practice and study than having especially high IQs. A 130 IQ and an unrelenting obsession with chess will get you farther than a 200 IQ and a moderately high interest in the game.

    And I think this sort of monomania directed at a game is much more common among male personalities than female, regardless of IQ. Some of that same tendency is probably present in men who talk obsessively about sports or video games. While women will sometimes discuss these things, I’ve never heard a woman — and I’ve known some highly intelligent and analytical women — analyze sports, video games, or board games with an obsessive level of detail. I’ve known many men with this quirk (and I’m one of them).

    Otherwise a good piece, but I think comparing numbers of chess grandmasters is pretty weak evidence. I’d expect the ratio to be highly skewed even if men and women had identical IQ distributions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Thanks

    Consider this
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/practice-makes-one-third-perfect-other

    And if you wish, far more generally, and not directly to your point, this

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/artificial-general-intelligence-von
    , @res
    I agree with your points, but some good features of chess are data availability and reduction of skill to a numerical score which can be examined over time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Wency
    Of all possible areas of achievement, why focus on chess grandmasters? What about, say, Fields Medal winners?

    While grandmasters are no dummies, it's pretty well understood that their success has much more to do with practice and study than having especially high IQs. A 130 IQ and an unrelenting obsession with chess will get you farther than a 200 IQ and a moderately high interest in the game.

    And I think this sort of monomania directed at a game is much more common among male personalities than female, regardless of IQ. Some of that same tendency is probably present in men who talk obsessively about sports or video games. While women will sometimes discuss these things, I've never heard a woman -- and I've known some highly intelligent and analytical women -- analyze sports, video games, or board games with an obsessive level of detail. I've known many men with this quirk (and I'm one of them).

    Otherwise a good piece, but I think comparing numbers of chess grandmasters is pretty weak evidence. I'd expect the ratio to be highly skewed even if men and women had identical IQ distributions.

    Thanks

    Consider this

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/practice-makes-one-third-perfect-other

    And if you wish, far more generally, and not directly to your point, this

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/artificial-general-intelligence-von

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

    Ah, the evolutionary psychologists again!!!! Apparently their fund of differences and explanations is inexhaustible. This article, plus things like this complementary article, leads me to believe neanderthals were probably more intelligent than psychologists.

    Neanderthals Had Bigger Brains Than Modern Humans — Why Are We Smarter?

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/neanderthal-bigger-brains-humans.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Same for whales. Obviously neanderthals are much more physiologically similar to modern humans, but it seems pretty clear that a simple brain size metric is more relevant within a single species/subspecies than between species/subspecies.

    At some point it will be interesting to see how different neanderthal and human genetics are in intelligence related areas. Especially if we are able to distinguish size from other functional differences.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. res says:
    @EH
    Deviation IQs are by definition normally distributed, but in the tails they aren't equal-interval scales, the marks on the scale are effectively spaced more widely, each deviation IQ point around 160 represents a greater difference in intelligence than an IQ point near 100.

    The age-ratio scale has always seemed not only confusing, but a bit suspect to me since:
    * many people think that they equate or at least closely relate to the deviation scores used on modern tests - I'm skeptical
    * many think that they are stable over age - they aren't for high scorers since the age-equivalent scale tops out at around age 16
    * age-ratio scores are easily confused with ratio-scale scores (equal-interval scales with a true zero such as the the Rasch CSS scale on the Stanford-Binet (SB5)).
    * implicitly people think that intelligence increases linearly with age, it actually increases with the logarithm of age when measured on a scale such as the CSS.

    One tidbit indicating a fat-tailed distribution: according to Use of the SB5 in the Assessment of High Abilities a Riverside Publishing service bulletin by Deborah Ruf, in the norming of the SB5 the highest FSIQ CSS found was 592, with 510-515 being the average adult score. (p.9-10). On the block-rotation subtest (slide 19), at least, the adult s.d. is about 8.5 CSS points over to mean to +3 sigma range, which means that 592 score is something like 9 standard deviations out, and even if the FSIQ s.d is much bigger, that's still equivalent to an IQ of over 200 with an expected rarity of from 1 in at least tens of billions to basically "never".

    [more later if I have time, Dr. Thompson's point about how La Griffe du Lion's Method of Thresholds is affected by a LN distribution is important]

    Thank you for your very informative comment! That SB5 link is one of the best references I have seen on high IQ testing. In case anyone else is interested in your slide link, here are blog posts which address that whole series: http://www.iqscorner.com/search/label/Rasch
    The Applied Psychometrics 101 Reports and Briefs at the blog also look interesting.

    Deviation IQs are by definition normally distributed, but in the tails they aren’t equal-interval scales, the marks on the scale are effectively spaced more widely, each deviation IQ point around 160 represents a greater difference in intelligence than an IQ point near 100.

    I have never been sure how closely the definition matches the reality (of scores) given the difficulty of norming tests for exceptionally rare cases. Your second sentence is intriguing. Can you recommend any references that discuss the linearity of the relationship of deviation IQ points to “intelligence”? Is there a similar effect at the lower tail? Does anyone have access to SB5 CSS to IQ/EXIQ conversion information?

    One other thing which bothers me about the age ratio idea is the issue of differing rates of development. Has anyone attempted to analyze/correct for/quantify/measure this in the context of intelligence? Does brain development generally parallel other physical development?

    implicitly people think that intelligence increases linearly with age, it actually increases with the logarithm of age when measured on a scale such as the CSS.

    This idea was new to me, but makes perfect sense once I see it. Can you recommend any references that discuss this?

    P.S. I hope you have time later ; ) Thanks again!

    P.P.S. While I was searching on related topics I ran across this paper covering various SB5 composites and thought others might be interested: http://www.hmhco.com/~/media/sites/home/hmh-assessments/clinical/stanford-binet/pdf/sb5_asb_4.pdf
    and this paper with QQ plots for SB5 IQ scores: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4613563/
    Does anyone know of a distribution plot for SB5 CSS?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. res says:
    @Wency
    Of all possible areas of achievement, why focus on chess grandmasters? What about, say, Fields Medal winners?

    While grandmasters are no dummies, it's pretty well understood that their success has much more to do with practice and study than having especially high IQs. A 130 IQ and an unrelenting obsession with chess will get you farther than a 200 IQ and a moderately high interest in the game.

    And I think this sort of monomania directed at a game is much more common among male personalities than female, regardless of IQ. Some of that same tendency is probably present in men who talk obsessively about sports or video games. While women will sometimes discuss these things, I've never heard a woman -- and I've known some highly intelligent and analytical women -- analyze sports, video games, or board games with an obsessive level of detail. I've known many men with this quirk (and I'm one of them).

    Otherwise a good piece, but I think comparing numbers of chess grandmasters is pretty weak evidence. I'd expect the ratio to be highly skewed even if men and women had identical IQ distributions.

    I agree with your points, but some good features of chess are data availability and reduction of skill to a numerical score which can be examined over time.

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

    That’s interesting. On my screen following Wency’s comment 22 Doc T’s comment is numbered as 3 and then hyperbola’s as 4. There are already comments 3 and 4 located, as convention dictates, between 2 and 5.

    Edit: And now it’s corrected itself except that this very comment has become numbered as 5. Presumably when I click “Save” the number will become 25. Unz moves in mysterious ways.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. res says:
    @hyperbola
    Ah, the evolutionary psychologists again!!!! Apparently their fund of differences and explanations is inexhaustible. This article, plus things like this complementary article, leads me to believe neanderthals were probably more intelligent than psychologists.

    Neanderthals Had Bigger Brains Than Modern Humans — Why Are We Smarter?
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/neanderthal-bigger-brains-humans.htm

    Same for whales. Obviously neanderthals are much more physiologically similar to modern humans, but it seems pretty clear that a simple brain size metric is more relevant within a single species/subspecies than between species/subspecies.

    At some point it will be interesting to see how different neanderthal and human genetics are in intelligence related areas. Especially if we are able to distinguish size from other functional differences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hyperbola
    One of the reasons that I included the Neanderthal article was the plethora of totally unsubstantiated speculation about Neanderthal IQ - to say nothing of wild speculation about what might contribute to bigger brains but less IQ. How exactly do you propose to measure Neanderthal "IQ" for your comparisons? I suppose that in principle someday we might be able to retroactively clone a "Neanderthal" (without ever having proof that we have been successful - e.g. we know fetuses are heavily imprinted by gestation), but how do you propose to recreate the nurture (environmental) component of Neanderthal child development? All this speculation is pure rubbish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. I’ve only read Lynn’s paper so far (thanks for providing a free copy, Dr. Thompson!) and am unsure about a few of his citations since I have read the papers in question before.

    For example Lynn reports a difference of 0.57SD in favor of men on the WJ-III among participants aged 19-79. Yet in the actual paper (Camarata & Woodcock 2006) the differences reported are 3.3 points in the 19-34 age group, -3.1 points in the 35-49 age group and 2.6 points in the 50-79 age group. I’m unsure how Lynn reported such a large difference here when the unweighted mean favors men by only about 0.06SD.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222702039_Sex_differences_in_processing_speed_Developmental_effects_in_males_and_females

    Similarly Lynn reports a difference of 0.3 SD in g for the van der Sluis et al., 2006 paper which specifically argues

    >that males and females do differ with respect to specific cognitive
    abilities, but that g cannot be viewed as the source of these differences.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851?via%3Dihub

    Again I’m not sure where Lynn’s figure of 0.3SD comes from. A few more examples like this.

    This isn’t supposed to be a cheap excuse for discounting his research on this topic. I’m just curious on whethere he has made a few mistakes here or is aware of something I’m not aware of. I hope that someone more familiar with the research weighs in here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Will find out.
    , @James Thompson
    Prof Lynn replies:

    In the Camarata and Woodcock 2006 paper in the age groups 19-79, men have an advantage of 2.21 IQ points on fluid reasoning (gf) and an advantage of .07 IQ points on general intellectual ability .
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I have so far only read Prof Jim Flynn's reply and am reminded of one of the irritating deficiencies of Lynn's works on race differences. That is an apparently indiscriminate approach to selecting data to base his speculations and calculations on. It was his ingenuous acceptance and use of IQ scores for primitive peoples at averages of 63 and less that made me question his work (before Ron Unz dealt him some mighty blows) and I am not sure he has improved.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @newAccount
    I've only read Lynn's paper so far (thanks for providing a free copy, Dr. Thompson!) and am unsure about a few of his citations since I have read the papers in question before.

    For example Lynn reports a difference of 0.57SD in favor of men on the WJ-III among participants aged 19-79. Yet in the actual paper (Camarata & Woodcock 2006) the differences reported are 3.3 points in the 19-34 age group, -3.1 points in the 35-49 age group and 2.6 points in the 50-79 age group. I'm unsure how Lynn reported such a large difference here when the unweighted mean favors men by only about 0.06SD.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222702039_Sex_differences_in_processing_speed_Developmental_effects_in_males_and_females

    Similarly Lynn reports a difference of 0.3 SD in g for the van der Sluis et al., 2006 paper which specifically argues

    >that males and females do differ with respect to specific cognitive
    abilities, but that g cannot be viewed as the source of these differences.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851?via%3Dihub

    Again I'm not sure where Lynn's figure of 0.3SD comes from. A few more examples like this.

    This isn't supposed to be a cheap excuse for discounting his research on this topic. I'm just curious on whethere he has made a few mistakes here or is aware of something I'm not aware of. I hope that someone more familiar with the research weighs in here.

    Will find out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Frankly, having 4 billion extra neurons and only getting 4 more IQ points out of that is a very disappointing performance boost. So men have brains that contain 16% more neurons than women. Yet according to Rushton, blacks have brains that are 6% smaller than that of whites, and the difference in IQ is a full standard deviation. Black men, at least, have brains that ought to be close to the size of white women, yet they’re a lot dumber than white women. Neurons are only part of the story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    This could be explained by Jensen's speculation that a lot of the male-female difference in brain size is due to male brains having more neurons, but these extra neurons being devoted to spatial abilities (such as telling where one is) that are not considered to be part of "intelligence."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. AP says:
    @Anon
    Frankly, having 4 billion extra neurons and only getting 4 more IQ points out of that is a very disappointing performance boost. So men have brains that contain 16% more neurons than women. Yet according to Rushton, blacks have brains that are 6% smaller than that of whites, and the difference in IQ is a full standard deviation. Black men, at least, have brains that ought to be close to the size of white women, yet they're a lot dumber than white women. Neurons are only part of the story.

    This could be explained by Jensen’s speculation that a lot of the male-female difference in brain size is due to male brains having more neurons, but these extra neurons being devoted to spatial abilities (such as telling where one is) that are not considered to be part of “intelligence.”

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

    Tens of millions of SAT scores over the last 60 years (see the data at https://www.collegeboard.org), shows that men are very slightly better at verbal skills, and a great deal (40 points average) better at Math. That comes out to 4-4 1/2 IQ points superiority for men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. utu says:

    boys and girls have about the same IQ up to the age of 15 years but from the age of 16 the average IQ of males becomes higher than that of females with an advantage increasing to approximately 4 IQ points in adulthood.

    We often hear, also on these pages, that IQ is very stable throughout one’s life and yet we are told now that boys accumulate 4 points after the age of 15.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    IQ is very stable throughout one’s life
     
    After onset of adulthood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. dux.ie says:

    The shape of IQ distribution curve is dependent on the population demographics and the number of factors that affect it.

    It is seldom that a population is uniform or well harmonized (no assortative matings). Thus the raw distribution data are usually not bell shape. If enough IQ components are included or fiddling with the respective weighting factors a bell shape distribution can be produced. For example the composite ACT score distribution is bell shape but the respective subcomponents of English and Math are multi-modals, and Reading and Science are closer to bell shape as they might be more influence by hard-working and prep-classes. The English component might have mother tongue effects and the Math component could be more due to the innate fluid intelligence.

    Recently somebody pointed out that the raw ACT data for the racial groups were available on the web but that seems to have disappeared. For those who have copies of them can verify that the separate distributions for Blacks and Hispanics are mostly bi-modal while that for Asians is tri-modal. There has been a lot of talk about assortative matings that might produce super bright children and many people have tried to find the proof. However, many people like me had been searching in the wrong place. There might be assortative matings but only those in the lower conigtive range have many children that will show up in the data. Thus Murray was right about the population coming appart but it is the lower cognitive region that is distinctly moving down.

    The difference between normal and log-normal is nothing when compared to the effects of the population demographics.

    2013 MathAsian
    ACT IQLike|Freq
    12 72.0| 114
    13 74.8|## 392
    14 77.6|###### 1043
    15 80.5|############### 2558
    16 83.3|####################### 3762
    17 86.1|###################### 3615
    18 89.0|################ 2604
    19 91.8|############### 2500
    20 94.6|########### 1878
    21 97.5|############### 2432
    22 100.3|################# 2795
    23 103.1|####################### 3680
    24 105.9|########################### 4469
    25 108.8|############################# 4757
    26 111.6|################################# 5370
    27 114.4|############################# 4795
    28 117.3|########################### 4332
    29 120.1|################### 3190
    30 122.9|################# 2773
    31 125.8|############ 1962
    32 128.6|############## 2299
    33 131.4|############# 2231
    34 134.2|###################### 3533
    35 137.1|################ 2614
    36 139.9|########### 1915

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Wally says: • Website

    “A male Google employee reviewed some of the literature on the topic in the context of his workplace practices, and got sacked.”

    Also see about other dangerous science here:

    http://www.unz.com/article/books-banned-by-banned-books-week/

    Get yours today:

    see:
    Goolag T-Shirt tells the story

    https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11320

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Tom Welsh says:

    Isn’t this very much akin to arguing about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Surely 4 IQ points don’t amount to any significant difference in the real world. Especially since pure IQ is very much overshadowed by other important mental and emotional qualities. E.g.

    “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education alone will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent”.

    - Calvin Coolidge

    I am amazed to find myself writing these words, as I have been very much inclined to defend the value of IQ for the past 60 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    I defend the value of IQ, but only in proportion. It would be unfair to allege that the IQ-obsessed are as mad or bad as the IQ-deniers, but they do seem to run in blinkers.

    One reason I like Doc T's blog is that he does evince a sense of proportion (plus a fine writing style, high levels of patience and courtesy, and many other merits that you'd expect (or at least hope) to see in an old-fashioned British academic).
    , @szopen
    " Surely 4 IQ points don’t amount to any significant difference in the real world. "

    Assume equal SDs, women at 98, men at 102, normal distribution (no fat tail).

    At threshold of 130, there would be then close to 2/3 of men (65%) and 1/3 of women.
    At threshold of 145, proportion of men would rise to 69%
    At 160, the proportion of men would rise to 75%

    Now, with difference of SD of just 0.5 point, at IQ 130 there would be 69%, at 77% at 145

    IMO this IS significant difference in real world (especially since SD differences seems to be higher than 0.5 point)
    , @jacques sheete
    I'm in the Coolidge camp.

    Men 4 Points Ahead?
     
    Yawn...It may as well be 40 points ahead for all the good it does. The reason is that women know that men are ruled by their balls and not their brains.

    Moral: The IQ obsessed may as well just keep wanking away.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. The quoted articles from MANKIND Quarterly Vol. 58, No. 1 from the fall of 2017, if correct (= by and large scientifically sound) might once be referred to as world news, in some parts of the not PC world at least, no?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @res
    Thanks for the interesting post, Dr. Thompson! And thanks also to you and Mankind Quarterly for the generous introductory offer. So much to read...

    There were some large differences in results above. One that caught my eye was this pair in Table 5:
    Country Test N FS V P Reference
    USA W-Bell 235 0.59 0.63 0.35 Strange & Palmer, 1953
    USA W-Bell 153 0.20 0.52 -0.35 Norman, 1953

    That performance IQ difference is striking given the same country, test, and year. Any thoughts?

    One thing I wanted to double check. In his paper Lynn talks about controlling for body size when looking at brain size. But if I understand correctly he did not make that control in Table 1 above. Is there any way of seeing the controlled for data? The text of the paper mentions that there are relative body size changes happening at the same time.

    Does anyone know of a good discussion of techniques for controlling for body size? At some point I'll try chasing down Lynn's references--"confirmed when controlled for body size by
    Ankney (1992) and Rushton (1992)"--but given how many possible controls there are (e.g. what exponent to use) it would be good to have a balanced discussion.

    I took a quick look at those references. Links: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290013H
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016028969290017L
    I only found a PDF for the latter. Page 6 discusses corrections (e.g. exponents) and Table 3 and Figure 1 provide fairly consistent (I am guessing the small sample size caused the variation for "Mongoloid females") corrected differences. However, I don't see any takeaway concerning "here is our recommended way to correct for size differences."

    Convergent (((psycho))) cognitive evolution/adaptation.

    Again the same subject…

    Or mister Thom is naive and think (((leftists))) lies or misunderstood this issues by good faith or he is trying keep his audience entertained (and know more about this [[[political issues]]] than actually show).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. dearieme says:
    @Tom Welsh
    Isn't this very much akin to arguing about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Surely 4 IQ points don't amount to any significant difference in the real world. Especially since pure IQ is very much overshadowed by other important mental and emotional qualities. E.g.

    "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education alone will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent".

    - Calvin Coolidge

    I am amazed to find myself writing these words, as I have been very much inclined to defend the value of IQ for the past 60 years.

    I defend the value of IQ, but only in proportion. It would be unfair to allege that the IQ-obsessed are as mad or bad as the IQ-deniers, but they do seem to run in blinkers.

    One reason I like Doc T’s blog is that he does evince a sense of proportion (plus a fine writing style, high levels of patience and courtesy, and many other merits that you’d expect (or at least hope) to see in an old-fashioned British academic).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. szopen says:
    @Tom Welsh
    Isn't this very much akin to arguing about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Surely 4 IQ points don't amount to any significant difference in the real world. Especially since pure IQ is very much overshadowed by other important mental and emotional qualities. E.g.

    "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education alone will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent".

    - Calvin Coolidge

    I am amazed to find myself writing these words, as I have been very much inclined to defend the value of IQ for the past 60 years.

    ” Surely 4 IQ points don’t amount to any significant difference in the real world. ”

    Assume equal SDs, women at 98, men at 102, normal distribution (no fat tail).

    At threshold of 130, there would be then close to 2/3 of men (65%) and 1/3 of women.
    At threshold of 145, proportion of men would rise to 69%
    At 160, the proportion of men would rise to 75%

    Now, with difference of SD of just 0.5 point, at IQ 130 there would be 69%, at 77% at 145

    IMO this IS significant difference in real world (especially since SD differences seems to be higher than 0.5 point)

    Read More
    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @utu
    boys and girls have about the same IQ up to the age of 15 years but from the age of 16 the average IQ of males becomes higher than that of females with an advantage increasing to approximately 4 IQ points in adulthood.

    We often hear, also on these pages, that IQ is very stable throughout one's life and yet we are told now that boys accumulate 4 points after the age of 15.

    IQ is very stable throughout one’s life

    After onset of adulthood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    After onset of adulthood.
     
    Which occurs earlier in girls than in boys and earlier in some individual than others whichever the sex, which rather makes nonsense of measuring IQ of children who vary widely in pace of development, the variation in part likely due to diet and other environmental factors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Tom Welsh
    Isn't this very much akin to arguing about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin? Surely 4 IQ points don't amount to any significant difference in the real world. Especially since pure IQ is very much overshadowed by other important mental and emotional qualities. E.g.

    "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education alone will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent".

    - Calvin Coolidge

    I am amazed to find myself writing these words, as I have been very much inclined to defend the value of IQ for the past 60 years.

    I’m in the Coolidge camp.

    Men 4 Points Ahead?

    Yawn…It may as well be 40 points ahead for all the good it does. The reason is that women know that men are ruled by their balls and not their brains.

    Moral: The IQ obsessed may as well just keep wanking away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite

    Yawn…It may as well be 40 points ahead for all the good it does. The reason is that women know that men are ruled by their balls and not their brains.
     
    Well, they are very much front and center in male consciousness. Fig leaves have proven their metaphorical and social use over the ages. But I once read a paragraph in a psychology book which said that men are much more likely to be able to focus exclusively and intensively on one thing. Or two. Mechanical and abstract things outside the realm of affections. disaffections, and duties. It made sense. I just couldn't imagine any of the girls I knew obsessing about chess 24/7, for 40 years, even the ones who enjoyed playing it and did well. Closest thing I saw to it were ballet dancers and some musicians. They were even more anomalous than males like that. IQ is not the major factor in this difference, but of course it would affect the aggregate data.
    , @Anon
    3.8 Points! If men are so much smarter then why do they commit 80 percent of all crimes?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Joe Hide says:

    To James Thompson,
    Highly readable despite data heavy material. This is good stuff! Great writing style. I want more!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. hyperbola says:
    @res
    Same for whales. Obviously neanderthals are much more physiologically similar to modern humans, but it seems pretty clear that a simple brain size metric is more relevant within a single species/subspecies than between species/subspecies.

    At some point it will be interesting to see how different neanderthal and human genetics are in intelligence related areas. Especially if we are able to distinguish size from other functional differences.

    One of the reasons that I included the Neanderthal article was the plethora of totally unsubstantiated speculation about Neanderthal IQ – to say nothing of wild speculation about what might contribute to bigger brains but less IQ. How exactly do you propose to measure Neanderthal “IQ” for your comparisons? I suppose that in principle someday we might be able to retroactively clone a “Neanderthal” (without ever having proof that we have been successful – e.g. we know fetuses are heavily imprinted by gestation), but how do you propose to recreate the nurture (environmental) component of Neanderthal child development? All this speculation is pure rubbish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Lynn has made a strong case for a male advantage in intelligence

    As measured, that is. And do keep in mind that a significant portion of the WAIS is oriented to analytical ability.

    and critics must now engage him on the detailed results he presents.

    Well, “must engage”? Not really. 4 points? Vanishingly trivial in real-world terms. Besides, who cares? If a female can carry the freight, she can do all the STEM she wants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Besides, who cares? If a female can carry the freight, she can do all the STEM she wants.
     
    Which planet are you from? On our planet the dominant ideology posits that a female representation of less than 50% among people with any achievements (like among math students) is proof positive of discrimination against women. It's of great importance to stop this madness.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    If one drug was 4 percent more effective, it would merit investigation. Declarating the search of knowledge to be somehow wrong is ridiculous.
    , @szopen
    After reading several comments of yours on this thread I am not sure whether you are troll, naive or worse.

    Vanishingly trivial in real-world terms.
     
    As I already mentioned in this thread, assuming normal distribution (no fat tail), identical SD and assuming IQ measures something which is very important for academic achievement, then it would mean (going by _IQ scores alone_, ie no psychological factors such as difference in interest) than more than 2/3 of PhD should be male in no discrimination scenario.

    Of course, there is strong possibility that males are more variable (because at quite a few other traits males ARE more variable and there are studies seeming to confirm that males ARE more variable in intelligence too).

    If a female can carry the freight, she can do all the STEM she wants
     

    If the broad can do the job better than the other applicants, she gets it.
     
    You seem to be misguided. I think most (if not all) regular participants in IQ related thread agree with the sentiment expressed above.
    We would love to see that only merit would decide about who would get a job.
    However, in a real world, there is a lot of pressure to hire a women over comparably competent (or even more competent) guy. In a recent grant I participated in, one of the measures about grant success was how many women participated and how many were in leading positions.
    Why? Because there are too few women in STEM. Why? Because, obviously, it's because of discrimination.
    If you don't know about this, then you are either naive, or live in a bubble. Or you are troll.


    I’ve noticed is that the nicer one is to a woman, especially if one remarks on how intelligent her actions are (never say “Gee, you’re smart!”), the nicer she is to me.
     
    This is completely not relevant to the comment you were replying to. The guy was not saying about whether a women are more nice or less nice, but whether they are more or less emotional. I do not say that women are or aren't more emotional; I merely point that your comment was non-argument, hinting a troll behavior.

    The average variance for one person taking two or more IQ tests is 3 points
     
    This is true, however it is highly unlikely that in tests all men would go in one direction. That is, the variation (some getting worse results than usual, some getting better) would cancel each other out. That's the basics.


    First thing: “Declarating” is not a word. Assuming you meant “declaring”, I will refrain from making a sharp retort regarding how you pulled “search for knowledge” out of your ass.
     
    A lot of commenters on unz.com are not native English speakers. I am from Poland, for example. Most of us realize that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Note: The cover shows a netsuke of Go players, carved by the 19th Century master Ogasawara Issai. Subscriptions for you or your affiliated library:

    The edition itself says:

    Cover picture: A miniature carving, or netsuke, in ivory, of Go players by the 18th century Japanese master carver Ogasawara Issai. See the article by Mangrui Wang on page 142

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Lynn has made a strong case for a male advantage in intelligence
     
    As measured, that is. And do keep in mind that a significant portion of the WAIS is oriented to analytical ability.

    and critics must now engage him on the detailed results he presents.
     
    Well, "must engage"? Not really. 4 points? Vanishingly trivial in real-world terms. Besides, who cares? If a female can carry the freight, she can do all the STEM she wants.

    Besides, who cares? If a female can carry the freight, she can do all the STEM she wants.

    Which planet are you from? On our planet the dominant ideology posits that a female representation of less than 50% among people with any achievements (like among math students) is proof positive of discrimination against women. It’s of great importance to stop this madness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    { a female representation of less than 50% among people with any achievements (like among math students) is proof positive of discrimination against women. It’s of great importance to stop this madness.}


    Well said.

    Not only that, but the percentages are used to legally discriminate against men (....at least in the West).
    So yes, it is of great importance to stop the madness and to debunk that the false narrative the lack of female representation in hard sciences is alleged proof of discrimination. Which in turn is used to legally discriminate against men.

    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Which planet are you from?
     
    Earth, this time. Feel free to be as resentful as you are moved to be about, um, Discrimination Theory. Frankly, I just don't give a shit about that. If the broad can do the job better than the other applicants, she gets it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. This would almost support the observation that men argue logically whereas women use emotional abuse.

    That is, if you approach the data logically. Otherwise this is sexist, racist, homophobic, shameful, guilt-laden hate speach.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Avery says:
    @reiner Tor

    Besides, who cares? If a female can carry the freight, she can do all the STEM she wants.
     
    Which planet are you from? On our planet the dominant ideology posits that a female representation of less than 50% among people with any achievements (like among math students) is proof positive of discrimination against women. It's of great importance to stop this madness.

    { a female representation of less than 50% among people with any achievements (like among math students) is proof positive of discrimination against women. It’s of great importance to stop this madness.}

    Well said.

    Not only that, but the percentages are used to legally discriminate against men (….at least in the West).
    So yes, it is of great importance to stop the madness and to debunk that the false narrative the lack of female representation in hard sciences is alleged proof of discrimination. Which in turn is used to legally discriminate against men.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dieter Kief
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @reiner Tor

    Besides, who cares? If a female can carry the freight, she can do all the STEM she wants.
     
    Which planet are you from? On our planet the dominant ideology posits that a female representation of less than 50% among people with any achievements (like among math students) is proof positive of discrimination against women. It's of great importance to stop this madness.

    Which planet are you from?

    Earth, this time. Feel free to be as resentful as you are moved to be about, um, Discrimination Theory. Frankly, I just don’t give a shit about that. If the broad can do the job better than the other applicants, she gets it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    Earth, this time. Feel free to be as resentful as you are moved to be about, um, Discrimination Theory. Frankly, I just don’t give a shit about that. If the broad can do the job better than the other applicants, she gets it.
     
    Of course, you gloss over the important issue: How do you determine if she can do the job?

    And the subsidiary question: In practice, is there any evidence that women do the job better than men?

    Restricting my attention to jobs in the tech field requiring high IQ, how does it work?

    In the tech field it tends to be impractical to give applicants IQ tests so we rely on interviews, and some can be pretty grueling interviews, as well as references, looking at what they have done before, and so on.

    Then we offer them the job and hopefully they accept.

    Then they start working and we get to see if they really have what it takes.

    The problem, of course, is that if we select a female candidate and she does not work out it is far harder to fire her than if we make a mistake on a male candidate.

    Bringing my personal experience into the equation I have worked with females in tech before and currently. I have met very few superstars and they tend to have different skill sets than males. They are often more detail oriented than males but far less determined to make something work and far less willing to move into uncharted areas than males are. In software maintenance the first is an asset but in software development the other two are big assets. I suspect the same is true in other tech fields.

    I have never been on a hiring committee looking at a female candidate so I cannot discuss whether or not these issues come up in the interview evaluations.

    However, my point is that at the candidate stage you simply do not know whether she will do the job better than the male candidates and there are lots of downsides to making the wrong choice. As a result we use heuristics, like average IQ of the sexes, the known differences in the variances of male and female IQ and in the area of simple bloody-minded determination to get the job done.

    And because we can fire male candidates more easily and with less costs than female candidates ...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. joe webb says:

    I read somewhere that after 120 IQ, White men leave white women in the dust and that at @ 170 there were 30 times more men than women. Hence Glass Ceiling is only in the eyes of the ladies, and their emotional brain.

    True or true more or less, or not?

    In casual observation over a lifetime, I have noticed that regardless of higher intelligence in a lady, that her emotions rule far more than in men..

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    In casual observation over a lifetime, I have noticed that regardless of higher intelligence in a lady, that her emotions rule far more than in men..
     
    What I've noticed is that the nicer one is to a woman, especially if one remarks on how intelligent her actions are (never say "Gee, you're smart!"), the nicer she is to me.

    But, that's just me -- plain old stupid, not-insulting, not-deprecating, not abusing women. Silly me. I know that all you rilly, rilly smart guys slap 'em around and tell 'em they're stupid. God, I am so envious of you macho studs.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @dearieme
    "omitting tasks on which [men] had better scores, such as spatial perception and mental rotation of shapes, and mechanical knowledge". I'm not surprised that men have better mechanical knowledge given their conspicuously greater interest in things mechanical. Are there other topics on which women might have better scores but which are not routinely measured in tests? F'rinstance, dealing with babies.

    Breast feeding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Peripatetic commenter

    Note: The cover shows a netsuke of Go players, carved by the 19th Century master Ogasawara Issai. Subscriptions for you or your affiliated library:
     
    The edition itself says:

    Cover picture: A miniature carving, or netsuke, in ivory, of Go players by the 18th century Japanese master carver Ogasawara Issai. See the article by Mangrui Wang on page 142
     

    My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @newAccount
    I've only read Lynn's paper so far (thanks for providing a free copy, Dr. Thompson!) and am unsure about a few of his citations since I have read the papers in question before.

    For example Lynn reports a difference of 0.57SD in favor of men on the WJ-III among participants aged 19-79. Yet in the actual paper (Camarata & Woodcock 2006) the differences reported are 3.3 points in the 19-34 age group, -3.1 points in the 35-49 age group and 2.6 points in the 50-79 age group. I'm unsure how Lynn reported such a large difference here when the unweighted mean favors men by only about 0.06SD.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222702039_Sex_differences_in_processing_speed_Developmental_effects_in_males_and_females

    Similarly Lynn reports a difference of 0.3 SD in g for the van der Sluis et al., 2006 paper which specifically argues

    >that males and females do differ with respect to specific cognitive
    abilities, but that g cannot be viewed as the source of these differences.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851?via%3Dihub

    Again I'm not sure where Lynn's figure of 0.3SD comes from. A few more examples like this.

    This isn't supposed to be a cheap excuse for discounting his research on this topic. I'm just curious on whethere he has made a few mistakes here or is aware of something I'm not aware of. I hope that someone more familiar with the research weighs in here.

    Prof Lynn replies:

    In the Camarata and Woodcock 2006 paper in the age groups 19-79, men have an advantage of 2.21 IQ points on fluid reasoning (gf) and an advantage of .07 IQ points on general intellectual ability .

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    In the Camarata and Woodcock 2006 paper in the age groups 19-79, men have an advantage of 2.21 IQ points on fluid reasoning (gf) and an advantage of .07 IQ points on general intellectual ability .
     
    Mother of God, what obsessive, pointy-headed idiocy. The average variance for one person taking two or more IQ tests is 3 points. Or, it was for many years. Now that IQ tests have been categorically proven to measure intelligence absolutely, positively precisely, I'm sure that doesn't happen.

    I've seen 8 points individual variation on the Wechsler.

    This gender-difference IQ stuff is for OCD wackos to worry about. That and castration anxiety.
    , @thisAccount
    Thanks for taking my question to Lynn. Unfortunately does not explain why he reported a value of d = 0.57 for the Camarata & Woodcock paper in table 7 of his review. I assume this and similar stuff were just mistakes then
    , @szopen
    I've seen many times the claim that gf is often found to be same or almost same as g; how comes there is such a difference here? Do they mean "general intellectual ability" to be "g" or something else?

    Moreover, did he really meant 0.07 points 0r 0.07 SD?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @joe webb
    I read somewhere that after 120 IQ, White men leave white women in the dust and that at @ 170 there were 30 times more men than women. Hence Glass Ceiling is only in the eyes of the ladies, and their emotional brain.

    True or true more or less, or not?

    In casual observation over a lifetime, I have noticed that regardless of higher intelligence in a lady, that her emotions rule far more than in men..

    Joe Webb

    In casual observation over a lifetime, I have noticed that regardless of higher intelligence in a lady, that her emotions rule far more than in men..

    What I’ve noticed is that the nicer one is to a woman, especially if one remarks on how intelligent her actions are (never say “Gee, you’re smart!”), the nicer she is to me.

    But, that’s just me — plain old stupid, not-insulting, not-deprecating, not abusing women. Silly me. I know that all you rilly, rilly smart guys slap ‘em around and tell ‘em they’re stupid. God, I am so envious of you macho studs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @James Thompson
    Prof Lynn replies:

    In the Camarata and Woodcock 2006 paper in the age groups 19-79, men have an advantage of 2.21 IQ points on fluid reasoning (gf) and an advantage of .07 IQ points on general intellectual ability .

    In the Camarata and Woodcock 2006 paper in the age groups 19-79, men have an advantage of 2.21 IQ points on fluid reasoning (gf) and an advantage of .07 IQ points on general intellectual ability .

    Mother of God, what obsessive, pointy-headed idiocy. The average variance for one person taking two or more IQ tests is 3 points. Or, it was for many years. Now that IQ tests have been categorically proven to measure intelligence absolutely, positively precisely, I’m sure that doesn’t happen.

    I’ve seen 8 points individual variation on the Wechsler.

    This gender-difference IQ stuff is for OCD wackos to worry about. That and castration anxiety.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @utu
    The average variance for one person taking two or more IQ tests is 3 points.

    If test-retest correlation is 0.9 or 0.95 as it is often reported then SD of test-retest difference is 6.7 or 4.7 IQ points, respectively for the population with the SD=15.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @James Thompson
    Medicine?

    Affirmatively no. Good medical diagnosis requires primarily two things: good knowledge/memory and good pattern recognition. Men are slightly better at the former and appreciably better at the latter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Lynn has made a strong case for a male advantage in intelligence
     
    As measured, that is. And do keep in mind that a significant portion of the WAIS is oriented to analytical ability.

    and critics must now engage him on the detailed results he presents.
     
    Well, "must engage"? Not really. 4 points? Vanishingly trivial in real-world terms. Besides, who cares? If a female can carry the freight, she can do all the STEM she wants.

    If one drug was 4 percent more effective, it would merit investigation. Declarating the search of knowledge to be somehow wrong is ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    If one drug was 4 percent more effective, it would merit investigation. Declarating the search of knowledge to be somehow wrong is ridiculous.
     
    First thing: "Declarating" is not a word. Assuming you meant "declaring", I will refrain from making a sharp retort regarding how you pulled "search for knowledge" out of your ass.

    Declaring, even declarating, a 0.07 IQ point differential between males and females to be of any significance is laughable, at best.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    In the Camarata and Woodcock 2006 paper in the age groups 19-79, men have an advantage of 2.21 IQ points on fluid reasoning (gf) and an advantage of .07 IQ points on general intellectual ability .
     
    Mother of God, what obsessive, pointy-headed idiocy. The average variance for one person taking two or more IQ tests is 3 points. Or, it was for many years. Now that IQ tests have been categorically proven to measure intelligence absolutely, positively precisely, I'm sure that doesn't happen.

    I've seen 8 points individual variation on the Wechsler.

    This gender-difference IQ stuff is for OCD wackos to worry about. That and castration anxiety.

    The average variance for one person taking two or more IQ tests is 3 points.

    If test-retest correlation is 0.9 or 0.95 as it is often reported then SD of test-retest difference is 6.7 or 4.7 IQ points, respectively for the population with the SD=15.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    If test-retest correlation is 0.9 or 0.95 as it is often reported then SD of test-retest difference is 6.7 or 4.7 IQ points, respectively for the population with the SD=15.
     
    I assisted for an IQ researcher for a year, working from a grant issued by NIH. The researcher was also a resident psychiatrist with Chestnut Lodge in Rockville, MD. (since closed)

    A legitimate IQ test, the Wechsler for example, is administered by a certified psychologist in a one-on-one interview format. Yes, there's reasons for that. The test package is sealed, and subsequently opened by the administrator, who signs off that the test was sealed. The packaged tests ain't cheap. The test materials are destroyed after completion. The test administrator certifies the results and notes the identification number of the test package on the record.

    There are batteries of achievement tests that IQ freaks have taken to calling "IQ" tests, upon which is based much of this bogus IQ statistics crap, promoted by the likes of, oh, Sailer and Richwine. These tests are NOT IQ tests.

    Not that there's anything wrong with achievement tests -- they serve a purpose well. That purpose, however is not to measure intelligence. Achievement tests are effective in assessing learning or training, not intelligence per se.

    There also exist quite useful batteries of aptitude tests. These also serve a purpose well, and are a damn sight more useful to practical assessment of potential ability and developed skill than any "IQ" test or achievement test.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @reiner Tor

    IQ is very stable throughout one’s life
     
    After onset of adulthood.

    After onset of adulthood.

    Which occurs earlier in girls than in boys and earlier in some individual than others whichever the sex, which rather makes nonsense of measuring IQ of children who vary widely in pace of development, the variation in part likely due to diet and other environmental factors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I was wondering myself what did he mean. Certainly it did not address the issue I brought up.
    , @Santoculto
    Likely??

    Varies more because it's a period of development specially among individuals/children but individual variation seems a constant throughout life and its likely due environmental noise maybe less where people tend to be better for example a person who are more verbally bright than non verbal it's likely that she/he will be more constantly better on verbal than in non verbal (or n).

    Better = more confident.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @James Thompson
    Thanks. I regard this as on topic, and very interesting. Real distributions often deviate from normality anyway, either because of adverse living conditions/disease as in the Glasgow samples early in 20th Century, and just as a matter of course in the Isle of Wight studies in the 1960s. Measuring high intelligence is problematical, because standard approaches become strained. One tends to move to rankings given by other bright people. Fermi's remark about von Neumann, for example. I think all this is relevant to "glass ceiling" type arguments, and also to using La Griffe du Lion's techniques for calculating the group mean intelligence from which exceptional achievers are drawn.

    Do you know of any studies of the rather obvious problem that someone with the probable high processing speed implied by an 1Q of 190 (Six Sigmas as a young scientist friend said in reference to his peers) won’t have equivalent superiority of speed in his interface equipment?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    After onset of adulthood.
     
    Which occurs earlier in girls than in boys and earlier in some individual than others whichever the sex, which rather makes nonsense of measuring IQ of children who vary widely in pace of development, the variation in part likely due to diet and other environmental factors.

    I was wondering myself what did he mean. Certainly it did not address the issue I brought up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @newAccount
    I've only read Lynn's paper so far (thanks for providing a free copy, Dr. Thompson!) and am unsure about a few of his citations since I have read the papers in question before.

    For example Lynn reports a difference of 0.57SD in favor of men on the WJ-III among participants aged 19-79. Yet in the actual paper (Camarata & Woodcock 2006) the differences reported are 3.3 points in the 19-34 age group, -3.1 points in the 35-49 age group and 2.6 points in the 50-79 age group. I'm unsure how Lynn reported such a large difference here when the unweighted mean favors men by only about 0.06SD.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222702039_Sex_differences_in_processing_speed_Developmental_effects_in_males_and_females

    Similarly Lynn reports a difference of 0.3 SD in g for the van der Sluis et al., 2006 paper which specifically argues

    >that males and females do differ with respect to specific cognitive
    abilities, but that g cannot be viewed as the source of these differences.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289605000851?via%3Dihub

    Again I'm not sure where Lynn's figure of 0.3SD comes from. A few more examples like this.

    This isn't supposed to be a cheap excuse for discounting his research on this topic. I'm just curious on whethere he has made a few mistakes here or is aware of something I'm not aware of. I hope that someone more familiar with the research weighs in here.

    I have so far only read Prof Jim Flynn’s reply and am reminded of one of the irritating deficiencies of Lynn’s works on race differences. That is an apparently indiscriminate approach to selecting data to base his speculations and calculations on. It was his ingenuous acceptance and use of IQ scores for primitive peoples at averages of 63 and less that made me question his work (before Ron Unz dealt him some mighty blows) and I am not sure he has improved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Agree that we should drive for the highest standards of reporting.

    In the Becker edition of Lynn's figures, all results are traceable, and the Flynn correction is based on latest meta-analysis. Further corrections for sample size and representativeness will follow in due course, but anyone can do the former on the current database. That would give weighted estimates, rather than median figures. There is also a new major study in Nigeria, big sample, good representativeness of public schooling, which comes up with a mean of IQ 70, the best estimate at the moment, I think.

    For another irritating deficiency in the reporting of race differences, this time regarding Nisbett, Aronson, Blair, Dickens, Flynn, Halpern and Turkheimer, see:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/on-best-understanding-nisbett-and-co

    Two wrongs, by the way, do not make a right, they are simply two wrongs too many.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @EH
    Off-topic but of general interest:

    The normal distribution has long been known to not match the actual distribution of intelligence in the tails, underpredicting the true number of high scorers. The true distribution is still a matter of debate - I read many years ago that it might be a Pearson type IV distribution (of which I know nothing), but more often the log-normal distribution is mentioned as being close to the true intelligence curve. While the log-normal distribution is included in standard spreadsheet programs, one can't just plug in a 15 s.d. and a 100 mean, which makes it less convenient for most people.

    Here are the conversions:
    The equivalent log-normal mean of 100 is: LN(100)-0.5*LN((15/100)^2+1) = 4.5940
    (LN being the natural log function, not an abbreviation for log-normal)

    The equivalent log-normal standard deviation of 15 is: (LN((15/100)^2+1))^0.5 = 0.14917

    (I seem to recall reading that an s.d. of 16 instead of 15 actually has some fortuitous properties for log-normal IQ, but can't remember the details.)

    As an example of using this, here is the Excel/OpenOffice formula for computing the equivalent-rarity normal-distribution IQ score from a known log-normal score, A1:
    =NORMINV(1-(1-(LOGNORMDIST(A1;LN(100)-0.5*LN((15/100)^2+1);(LN((15/100)^2+1))^0.5;1)));100;15)

    Playing around with a table of converted log-normal IQ scores, I found some memorable regularities:
    *log-normal and normally-distributed IQ scores are equal to within +/- 2.5 points from 76 – 130, and +/- 1 point from 82 – 122 (on the log-normal scale).

    *Above IQ 116, a log-normal (true) intelligence score is always higher than a normal IQ score of the same rarity in the population.

    *The difference between log-normal (true) scores and normal IQ scores is to a good approximation:
    2 points at 125 IQ on normal scale,
    5 at 135,
    10 at 145,
    15
    (16) at 155, and
    20 at 160.
    -which gives an easily-remembered rule of thumb.


    Just to give an example: a normal-distribution 4-sigma anything, such as a 160 IQ, is about 1 in 30,000. In reality, with log-lormal distribution of intelligence, we should expect to find a score of 20 points higher, or 180 in about 1 in 30,000 people. The normal distribution would predict on the order of one-one-thousandth as many people with a score of 180, 1 in 20M, (or 30M for 181).

    The gap between equal-rarity log-normal scores and normal scores continues to widen at higher normal IQ scores:
    25 at 166 (1 in 200k),
    30 at 172 (1 in 1M),
    35 at 176 (1 in 5M),
    40 at 181 (1 in 30M) )

    The log-normal bit–the question of what the distribution actually looks like is an interesting one. And I agree with you that the tails are indeed fatter than a normal distribution.

    But your IQ numbers aren’t really interesting. IQ isn’t an objective and real measure like say “height”.

    An IQ score is precisely just where someone stands relative to other people based on a normal distribution and a particular mean and SD. Ex. a 145 IQ means precisely–that on this test–”hey you’re smarter than 99.8% (whatever the 3SD number is) of a random collection of white people” and really nothing else. It doesn’t matter what the underlying distribution actually is. That’s what it means.

    It doesn’t mean you’re 45% smarter than the average person. On a typical IQ test–i.e. pretty tractable problems–the 145 person is getting pretty much everything right and the average person can’t figure out a lot of questions or gets them wrong. We all know that the 145 person–all else being equal–will be way more valuable in most sorts of tasks\work. Depending on the cognitive demands the 145 guy will be anywhere from “a bit better” to “worth three regular guys” to–for the most demanding mental processes–essentially infinitely better.

    You could go about renaming 145 to 165 to try and highlight that such a person is really way way smarter than the average bear … but it doesn’t buy you much of anything. It’s still not going to be a linear scale with each point the same extra dollop of “intelligence”. And your new 165 IQ still won’t be any sort of fair gauge about how much better the guy is than someone more average. IQ simply isn’t a measure like height and there’s no way to make it one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your observations about the likely much greater utility of the 145+ IQ scorer makes this perhaps an appropriate place to note the damage being done by the pretence of giving 40+ per cent of people a university education. In Flynn's response to Lynn I was surprised, even shocked, to find the positing of 100 for men and 95 for women as the cutoff points for entry to university and corresponding average IQs of about 111 for university students. Is it surprising that there is now a large corps of university teachers - all in the soft subjects - of only moderate intelligence who combine with the dim students to convince themselves that they are intellectuals whose thoughts about anything important to the wider society have value and are worth insisting others take seriously?

    And when grammar, spelling and comprehension break down they shout and at best wave placards at speakers whom they can't understand but think are probably saying nasty clever things.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Daniel Chieh
    If one drug was 4 percent more effective, it would merit investigation. Declarating the search of knowledge to be somehow wrong is ridiculous.

    If one drug was 4 percent more effective, it would merit investigation. Declarating the search of knowledge to be somehow wrong is ridiculous.

    First thing: “Declarating” is not a word. Assuming you meant “declaring”, I will refrain from making a sharp retort regarding how you pulled “search for knowledge” out of your ass.

    Declaring, even declarating, a 0.07 IQ point differential between males and females to be of any significance is laughable, at best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Its not about "significance" insofar as judgment; its about furthering avenues of investigation based on irregularities noticed. The same goes for looking into pretty useless things such as planetary wobbles, etc.

    Fairly small differences also go into play for, Dr. John J Ratey investigates in SPARK in regards to intelligence and cardiac fitness(correlated, possibly due to improved blood flow) or Whalley LJ, et al did with DHA/Omega-3 childhood consumption and later intelligence(possibly due to neuroprotective properties) . Its hardly morally wrong to investigate into those either. Heck, even lead poisoning shows only a deficiency of 2 IQ in some studies( Lanphear et al ), but it doesn't mean that its pointless to look into it.

    It feels like you're taking this a lot more emotionally than it is necessary and its likely a personal cause. Have a good life.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @utu
    The average variance for one person taking two or more IQ tests is 3 points.

    If test-retest correlation is 0.9 or 0.95 as it is often reported then SD of test-retest difference is 6.7 or 4.7 IQ points, respectively for the population with the SD=15.

    If test-retest correlation is 0.9 or 0.95 as it is often reported then SD of test-retest difference is 6.7 or 4.7 IQ points, respectively for the population with the SD=15.

    I assisted for an IQ researcher for a year, working from a grant issued by NIH. The researcher was also a resident psychiatrist with Chestnut Lodge in Rockville, MD. (since closed)

    A legitimate IQ test, the Wechsler for example, is administered by a certified psychologist in a one-on-one interview format. Yes, there’s reasons for that. The test package is sealed, and subsequently opened by the administrator, who signs off that the test was sealed. The packaged tests ain’t cheap. The test materials are destroyed after completion. The test administrator certifies the results and notes the identification number of the test package on the record.

    There are batteries of achievement tests that IQ freaks have taken to calling “IQ” tests, upon which is based much of this bogus IQ statistics crap, promoted by the likes of, oh, Sailer and Richwine. These tests are NOT IQ tests.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with achievement tests — they serve a purpose well. That purpose, however is not to measure intelligence. Achievement tests are effective in assessing learning or training, not intelligence per se.

    There also exist quite useful batteries of aptitude tests. These also serve a purpose well, and are a damn sight more useful to practical assessment of potential ability and developed skill than any “IQ” test or achievement test.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You seem to be ignoring the concept of g. Do you understand it? And specificsally understand the concept of "g loading" which surely underlies the use of correlations of and in achievement and aptitude tests and tests like Ravens' Matrices to produce estimates of IQ?

    Please give and explain examples of what you judge to be Steve Sailer's promotion of 'bogua IQ statistics crap". Given his care for facts and correct stats I shall be surprised if you can do more than find a rare scarcely visible nit to pick.

    , @utu
    "The test materials are destroyed after completion."

    This is an interesting aspect of this pseudoscience that measuring tools have to be destroyed in order not to pollute and affect future measurements. Kind of a Heisenberg issue. The problem is that who verifies the pseudoscientists if everything is so hush hush? What if the envelopes were empty in the first place? What if it is a big scam that even the believers do not believe in? It smell like Scientology and many other cults and scams in the past like Blavatsky or Gurdjieff. Those are all nonscientific endeavors that can't pass the real science tests. But they hang on and somewhat work in limited environment of cultists and fools.

    much of this bogus IQ statistics crap, promoted by the likes of, oh, Sailer and Richwine

    Which tests, if any, these two are promoting is the least of the problem. Who are their enablers and what is their real job is what you should worry about?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @AnotherDad
    The log-normal bit--the question of what the distribution actually looks like is an interesting one. And I agree with you that the tails are indeed fatter than a normal distribution.


    But your IQ numbers aren't really interesting. IQ isn't an objective and real measure like say "height".

    An IQ score is precisely just where someone stands relative to other people based on a normal distribution and a particular mean and SD. Ex. a 145 IQ means precisely--that on this test--"hey you're smarter than 99.8% (whatever the 3SD number is) of a random collection of white people" and really nothing else. It doesn't matter what the underlying distribution actually is. That's what it means.

    It doesn't mean you're 45% smarter than the average person. On a typical IQ test--i.e. pretty tractable problems--the 145 person is getting pretty much everything right and the average person can't figure out a lot of questions or gets them wrong. We all know that the 145 person--all else being equal--will be way more valuable in most sorts of tasks\work. Depending on the cognitive demands the 145 guy will be anywhere from "a bit better" to "worth three regular guys" to--for the most demanding mental processes--essentially infinitely better.

    You could go about renaming 145 to 165 to try and highlight that such a person is really way way smarter than the average bear ... but it doesn't buy you much of anything. It's still not going to be a linear scale with each point the same extra dollop of "intelligence". And your new 165 IQ still won't be any sort of fair gauge about how much better the guy is than someone more average. IQ simply isn't a measure like height and there's no way to make it one.

    Your observations about the likely much greater utility of the 145+ IQ scorer makes this perhaps an appropriate place to note the damage being done by the pretence of giving 40+ per cent of people a university education. In Flynn’s response to Lynn I was surprised, even shocked, to find the positing of 100 for men and 95 for women as the cutoff points for entry to university and corresponding average IQs of about 111 for university students. Is it surprising that there is now a large corps of university teachers – all in the soft subjects – of only moderate intelligence who combine with the dim students to convince themselves that they are intellectuals whose thoughts about anything important to the wider society have value and are worth insisting others take seriously?

    And when grammar, spelling and comprehension break down they shout and at best wave placards at speakers whom they can’t understand but think are probably saying nasty clever things.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Harold says:
    @EH
    Off-topic but of general interest:

    The normal distribution has long been known to not match the actual distribution of intelligence in the tails, underpredicting the true number of high scorers. The true distribution is still a matter of debate - I read many years ago that it might be a Pearson type IV distribution (of which I know nothing), but more often the log-normal distribution is mentioned as being close to the true intelligence curve. While the log-normal distribution is included in standard spreadsheet programs, one can't just plug in a 15 s.d. and a 100 mean, which makes it less convenient for most people.

    Here are the conversions:
    The equivalent log-normal mean of 100 is: LN(100)-0.5*LN((15/100)^2+1) = 4.5940
    (LN being the natural log function, not an abbreviation for log-normal)

    The equivalent log-normal standard deviation of 15 is: (LN((15/100)^2+1))^0.5 = 0.14917

    (I seem to recall reading that an s.d. of 16 instead of 15 actually has some fortuitous properties for log-normal IQ, but can't remember the details.)

    As an example of using this, here is the Excel/OpenOffice formula for computing the equivalent-rarity normal-distribution IQ score from a known log-normal score, A1:
    =NORMINV(1-(1-(LOGNORMDIST(A1;LN(100)-0.5*LN((15/100)^2+1);(LN((15/100)^2+1))^0.5;1)));100;15)

    Playing around with a table of converted log-normal IQ scores, I found some memorable regularities:
    *log-normal and normally-distributed IQ scores are equal to within +/- 2.5 points from 76 – 130, and +/- 1 point from 82 – 122 (on the log-normal scale).

    *Above IQ 116, a log-normal (true) intelligence score is always higher than a normal IQ score of the same rarity in the population.

    *The difference between log-normal (true) scores and normal IQ scores is to a good approximation:
    2 points at 125 IQ on normal scale,
    5 at 135,
    10 at 145,
    15
    (16) at 155, and
    20 at 160.
    -which gives an easily-remembered rule of thumb.


    Just to give an example: a normal-distribution 4-sigma anything, such as a 160 IQ, is about 1 in 30,000. In reality, with log-lormal distribution of intelligence, we should expect to find a score of 20 points higher, or 180 in about 1 in 30,000 people. The normal distribution would predict on the order of one-one-thousandth as many people with a score of 180, 1 in 20M, (or 30M for 181).

    The gap between equal-rarity log-normal scores and normal scores continues to widen at higher normal IQ scores:
    25 at 166 (1 in 200k),
    30 at 172 (1 in 1M),
    35 at 176 (1 in 5M),
    40 at 181 (1 in 30M) )

    The ‘actual’ distribution is not going to be well modelled by any clean mathematical function far enough into the tails.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @James Thompson
    Thanks. I regard this as on topic, and very interesting. Real distributions often deviate from normality anyway, either because of adverse living conditions/disease as in the Glasgow samples early in 20th Century, and just as a matter of course in the Isle of Wight studies in the 1960s. Measuring high intelligence is problematical, because standard approaches become strained. One tends to move to rankings given by other bright people. Fermi's remark about von Neumann, for example. I think all this is relevant to "glass ceiling" type arguments, and also to using La Griffe du Lion's techniques for calculating the group mean intelligence from which exceptional achievers are drawn.

    Following up the thoughts I have had and expressed about the unmeasured interface factor in assessing the performance advantages afforded by a very high IQ I think this is a related idea that I am willing to back with money.

    Consistently with programming computers successfully to play Chess or Go it would clearly be possible to program them to do the full battery of IQ tests. But it’s not that simple procedure that I propose. What is needed is a hardware + software that attempts to model the human brain’s processes and then is turned loose on the battery of IQ tests.

    Even with Model 1.1.1 it will be possible to start tweaking a little here and a little thete to see what effect the changes make on tests of varying g weighting.

    Maybe it shouĺd be started with an all software model and no non standard neural-systems simulating parts as a Proof of Concept.

    I could find money for such a project. Give me an address for yourself or get Ron to put you in touch with me.

    Does it have any theoretical fatal flaw or might it be useful?

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Thanks. I think that this field is very well covered by Hassabis.
    His teams are way, way ahead on these sorts of issues. I would see what they are up to first, because unless one recruits the best players one could waste time.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/artificial-general-intelligence-von
    , @res

    Consistently with programming computers successfully to play Chess or Go it would clearly be possible to program them to do the full battery of IQ tests. But it’s not that simple procedure that I propose. What is needed is a hardware + software that attempts to model the human brain’s processes and then is turned loose on the battery of IQ tests.
     
    This popular article discusses (and provides a link to) a recent paper discussing the "IQ" of AIs: https://boingboing.net/2017/10/10/study-measuring-iq-of-various.html
    Study measuring IQ of various AI puts Google's at 47.28

    If anyone looks at the paper, does it look like they switched grades 1 and 2 in Table 3 or am I misreading it?

    They currently rate Google's AI as grade 4 with the defining characteristic of grade 5 over 4 being non-zero C which represents knowledge and information innovation and creation. Grade 6 is essentially an intelligence singularity ; )

    The first reference from that paper has more details on the 2014 version of their test: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050914005389

    In a related note there is a new documentary on AlphaGo: http://www.businessinsider.com/alphago-documentary-provides-a-rare-look-inside-deepmind-2017-10
    It is showing in London today and tomorrow.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Wizard of Oz
    I have so far only read Prof Jim Flynn's reply and am reminded of one of the irritating deficiencies of Lynn's works on race differences. That is an apparently indiscriminate approach to selecting data to base his speculations and calculations on. It was his ingenuous acceptance and use of IQ scores for primitive peoples at averages of 63 and less that made me question his work (before Ron Unz dealt him some mighty blows) and I am not sure he has improved.

    Agree that we should drive for the highest standards of reporting.

    In the Becker edition of Lynn’s figures, all results are traceable, and the Flynn correction is based on latest meta-analysis. Further corrections for sample size and representativeness will follow in due course, but anyone can do the former on the current database. That would give weighted estimates, rather than median figures. There is also a new major study in Nigeria, big sample, good representativeness of public schooling, which comes up with a mean of IQ 70, the best estimate at the moment, I think.

    For another irritating deficiency in the reporting of race differences, this time regarding Nisbett, Aronson, Blair, Dickens, Flynn, Halpern and Turkheimer, see:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/on-best-understanding-nisbett-and-co

    Two wrongs, by the way, do not make a right, they are simply two wrongs too many.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I am not one who either by ideology or as a critical amateur has any great problem in believing that a competent large study of Nigerians has returned an IQ average of 70 on tests which return 85 for African-Americans and 100 for NW Europeans. And I am willing to take the precaution of not opening my country's permanent immigration programs indiscriminately to people whose profile includes such an average IQ whatever the cause. But.....

    Otherwise I find that figure of 70 to be lacking in the info it conveys. What is the parasite and disease load that might be overcome in a generation or two?
    More important: where is that part of Africa in terms of the Flynn Effect function or curve. If the Flynn Effect produces a 3 point gain every 10 years can it not reasonably be expected that the Nigerian average will probably reach 90 in 70-75 years? That's not far short of Israel! In short not a basket case uf not one's number one choice for randomly selected immigrants.

    A related issue is the evidence that the Flynn Effect is seen strongly evidenced on the presumed culture fair Raven's Matrices, and that Raven's are a most g laden measure of fluid intelligence compared with various vocabulary and other verbal and math tests. How come?

    And does the answer have any and what relation to my (true I believe) observation that Ravens' tests are very much subject to training/practice effects? There must be data on this. I wonder how many sittings or practices of (the oh so boring) Ravens' tests over what period of time produce significantly higher scores? (And where does this stand in relation to the Flynn Effect? It would I assume be part of it at some stage as the unsophisticated first became modestly test sophisticated and then became used to tests at school - and abstract geometrical figures - which gave some preparation for Ravens').
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @James Thompson
    Prof Lynn replies:

    In the Camarata and Woodcock 2006 paper in the age groups 19-79, men have an advantage of 2.21 IQ points on fluid reasoning (gf) and an advantage of .07 IQ points on general intellectual ability .

    Thanks for taking my question to Lynn. Unfortunately does not explain why he reported a value of d = 0.57 for the Camarata & Woodcock paper in table 7 of his review. I assume this and similar stuff were just mistakes then

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Agree it needs more explanation, and needs justification for the subtests chosen. Table 3 shows no difference for "General Intellectual Ability" and 2.2 scaled points for "Fluid Reasoning", which divided by a presumed standard deviation of 11.68 comes to 0.19 Furthermore, there are more women than men, and the sample sizes are rather small for this analysis.

    I will have to look further at this, but thanks for finding the relevant table.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @James Thompson
    Agree that we should drive for the highest standards of reporting.

    In the Becker edition of Lynn's figures, all results are traceable, and the Flynn correction is based on latest meta-analysis. Further corrections for sample size and representativeness will follow in due course, but anyone can do the former on the current database. That would give weighted estimates, rather than median figures. There is also a new major study in Nigeria, big sample, good representativeness of public schooling, which comes up with a mean of IQ 70, the best estimate at the moment, I think.

    For another irritating deficiency in the reporting of race differences, this time regarding Nisbett, Aronson, Blair, Dickens, Flynn, Halpern and Turkheimer, see:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/on-best-understanding-nisbett-and-co

    Two wrongs, by the way, do not make a right, they are simply two wrongs too many.

    I am not one who either by ideology or as a critical amateur has any great problem in believing that a competent large study of Nigerians has returned an IQ average of 70 on tests which return 85 for African-Americans and 100 for NW Europeans. And I am willing to take the precaution of not opening my country’s permanent immigration programs indiscriminately to people whose profile includes such an average IQ whatever the cause. But…..

    Otherwise I find that figure of 70 to be lacking in the info it conveys. What is the parasite and disease load that might be overcome in a generation or two?
    More important: where is that part of Africa in terms of the Flynn Effect function or curve. If the Flynn Effect produces a 3 point gain every 10 years can it not reasonably be expected that the Nigerian average will probably reach 90 in 70-75 years? That’s not far short of Israel! In short not a basket case uf not one’s number one choice for randomly selected immigrants.

    A related issue is the evidence that the Flynn Effect is seen strongly evidenced on the presumed culture fair Raven’s Matrices, and that Raven’s are a most g laden measure of fluid intelligence compared with various vocabulary and other verbal and math tests. How come?

    And does the answer have any and what relation to my (true I believe) observation that Ravens’ tests are very much subject to training/practice effects? There must be data on this. I wonder how many sittings or practices of (the oh so boring) Ravens’ tests over what period of time produce significantly higher scores? (And where does this stand in relation to the Flynn Effect? It would I assume be part of it at some stage as the unsophisticated first became modestly test sophisticated and then became used to tests at school – and abstract geometrical figures – which gave some preparation for Ravens’).

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Thanks. Lots of points. Yes, you can train people to do well on intelligence tests. Teaching to the test is not very interesting, unless thereby you can raise intelligence on another independent test. Faven's are not supposed to be given repeatedly.
    Flynn effects are expected for poor countries, but the rate of convergence may be slow. Could be 90 years, could be much longer. See special issue of Intelligence on Flynn Effect.
    Parasite load and general ill health are very probably factors lowering scores, and gradual improvements in public health may be bringing about real rises in intelligence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @John Jeremiah Smith

    If test-retest correlation is 0.9 or 0.95 as it is often reported then SD of test-retest difference is 6.7 or 4.7 IQ points, respectively for the population with the SD=15.
     
    I assisted for an IQ researcher for a year, working from a grant issued by NIH. The researcher was also a resident psychiatrist with Chestnut Lodge in Rockville, MD. (since closed)

    A legitimate IQ test, the Wechsler for example, is administered by a certified psychologist in a one-on-one interview format. Yes, there's reasons for that. The test package is sealed, and subsequently opened by the administrator, who signs off that the test was sealed. The packaged tests ain't cheap. The test materials are destroyed after completion. The test administrator certifies the results and notes the identification number of the test package on the record.

    There are batteries of achievement tests that IQ freaks have taken to calling "IQ" tests, upon which is based much of this bogus IQ statistics crap, promoted by the likes of, oh, Sailer and Richwine. These tests are NOT IQ tests.

    Not that there's anything wrong with achievement tests -- they serve a purpose well. That purpose, however is not to measure intelligence. Achievement tests are effective in assessing learning or training, not intelligence per se.

    There also exist quite useful batteries of aptitude tests. These also serve a purpose well, and are a damn sight more useful to practical assessment of potential ability and developed skill than any "IQ" test or achievement test.

    You seem to be ignoring the concept of g. Do you understand it? And specificsally understand the concept of “g loading” which surely underlies the use of correlations of and in achievement and aptitude tests and tests like Ravens’ Matrices to produce estimates of IQ?

    Please give and explain examples of what you judge to be Steve Sailer’s promotion of ‘bogua IQ statistics crap”. Given his care for facts and correct stats I shall be surprised if you can do more than find a rare scarcely visible nit to pick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    You seem to be ignoring the concept of g. Do you understand it?
     
    Do I understand g? No, of course not. How could someone as uneducated, as ignorant, as socially-rejected as I possibly comprehend a concept so complicated, so purely true, as g?

    Youse guys and your IQ obsession are welcome to dance on the head of every pin you can find. Fucking knock yourselves out. On the day that anyone in power, anywhere in the universe, gives two wet shits that niggahs and chicks be dumb, you will triumph.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Wizard of Oz
    You seem to be ignoring the concept of g. Do you understand it? And specificsally understand the concept of "g loading" which surely underlies the use of correlations of and in achievement and aptitude tests and tests like Ravens' Matrices to produce estimates of IQ?

    Please give and explain examples of what you judge to be Steve Sailer's promotion of 'bogua IQ statistics crap". Given his care for facts and correct stats I shall be surprised if you can do more than find a rare scarcely visible nit to pick.

    You seem to be ignoring the concept of g. Do you understand it?

    Do I understand g? No, of course not. How could someone as uneducated, as ignorant, as socially-rejected as I possibly comprehend a concept so complicated, so purely true, as g?

    Youse guys and your IQ obsession are welcome to dance on the head of every pin you can find. Fucking knock yourselves out. On the day that anyone in power, anywhere in the universe, gives two wet shits that niggahs and chicks be dumb, you will triumph.

    Read More
    • Troll: Daniel Chieh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @John Jeremiah Smith

    If one drug was 4 percent more effective, it would merit investigation. Declarating the search of knowledge to be somehow wrong is ridiculous.
     
    First thing: "Declarating" is not a word. Assuming you meant "declaring", I will refrain from making a sharp retort regarding how you pulled "search for knowledge" out of your ass.

    Declaring, even declarating, a 0.07 IQ point differential between males and females to be of any significance is laughable, at best.

    Its not about “significance” insofar as judgment; its about furthering avenues of investigation based on irregularities noticed. The same goes for looking into pretty useless things such as planetary wobbles, etc.

    Fairly small differences also go into play for, Dr. John J Ratey investigates in SPARK in regards to intelligence and cardiac fitness(correlated, possibly due to improved blood flow) or Whalley LJ, et al did with DHA/Omega-3 childhood consumption and later intelligence(possibly due to neuroprotective properties) . Its hardly morally wrong to investigate into those either. Heck, even lead poisoning shows only a deficiency of 2 IQ in some studies( Lanphear et al ), but it doesn’t mean that its pointless to look into it.

    It feels like you’re taking this a lot more emotionally than it is necessary and its likely a personal cause. Have a good life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Its not about “significance” insofar as judgment; its about furthering avenues of investigation based on irregularities noticed. The same goes for looking into pretty useless things such as planetary wobbles, etc.
     
    Yes, I know. I do have lucid moments, Daniel. Certainly, the dense emotional fog in which I operate blurs focus and obscures true meaningfulness, but crosses must be carried, must they not?

    Tell me, why do studies of racial/gender IQ comparisons appear most regularly, and predictably, in venues dedicated to political rhetoric? Must be, obviously, because those who fancy themselves pundits are the best qualified to comment on scientific research -- right, Daniel? And to contribute to such noble efforts to quantify, absolutely, an issue of such overwhelming importance in the modern world. How could anything be more important than an average 0.07 IQ point difference between males and females? One can but tremble with excitement, nicht wahr?

    I really must commend our august betters in government for their unrelenting efforts to reduce the amount of tax money flowing to blacks and mexicans as a result of these revelations of inferior IQ performance. Also, it certainly is admirable of our merit-based economic model that women, demonstrably inferior (and emotional wrecks, to boot), will be denied equal opportunity in employment, since, natch, they ain't equal.

    Thank you for pinpointing the immature, emotional basis of my contempt for IQ dicksizing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Which planet are you from?
     
    Earth, this time. Feel free to be as resentful as you are moved to be about, um, Discrimination Theory. Frankly, I just don't give a shit about that. If the broad can do the job better than the other applicants, she gets it.

    Earth, this time. Feel free to be as resentful as you are moved to be about, um, Discrimination Theory. Frankly, I just don’t give a shit about that. If the broad can do the job better than the other applicants, she gets it.

    Of course, you gloss over the important issue: How do you determine if she can do the job?

    And the subsidiary question: In practice, is there any evidence that women do the job better than men?

    Restricting my attention to jobs in the tech field requiring high IQ, how does it work?

    In the tech field it tends to be impractical to give applicants IQ tests so we rely on interviews, and some can be pretty grueling interviews, as well as references, looking at what they have done before, and so on.

    Then we offer them the job and hopefully they accept.

    Then they start working and we get to see if they really have what it takes.

    The problem, of course, is that if we select a female candidate and she does not work out it is far harder to fire her than if we make a mistake on a male candidate.

    Bringing my personal experience into the equation I have worked with females in tech before and currently. I have met very few superstars and they tend to have different skill sets than males. They are often more detail oriented than males but far less determined to make something work and far less willing to move into uncharted areas than males are. In software maintenance the first is an asset but in software development the other two are big assets. I suspect the same is true in other tech fields.

    I have never been on a hiring committee looking at a female candidate so I cannot discuss whether or not these issues come up in the interview evaluations.

    However, my point is that at the candidate stage you simply do not know whether she will do the job better than the male candidates and there are lots of downsides to making the wrong choice. As a result we use heuristics, like average IQ of the sexes, the known differences in the variances of male and female IQ and in the area of simple bloody-minded determination to get the job done.

    And because we can fire male candidates more easily and with less costs than female candidates …

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    However, my point is that at the candidate stage you simply do not know whether she will do the job better than the male candidates
     
    True. Nor do you know if any male applicants will do the job better.

    There are aptitude tests, achievement tests, proficiency tests, "hands-on" real-time testing in situ, etc. Lots of tests, lots of time to interview and evaluate. Picking the chick with the big tits is a failure, so is not selecting the best candidate through a process of dispassionately evaluating merit.

    So, sorry, but we disagree. IQ is totally irrelevant. Ability, demonstrated ability is the key. Always. That's based on my 40 years of experience in the workplace. Your mileage may vary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Daniel Chieh
    Its not about "significance" insofar as judgment; its about furthering avenues of investigation based on irregularities noticed. The same goes for looking into pretty useless things such as planetary wobbles, etc.

    Fairly small differences also go into play for, Dr. John J Ratey investigates in SPARK in regards to intelligence and cardiac fitness(correlated, possibly due to improved blood flow) or Whalley LJ, et al did with DHA/Omega-3 childhood consumption and later intelligence(possibly due to neuroprotective properties) . Its hardly morally wrong to investigate into those either. Heck, even lead poisoning shows only a deficiency of 2 IQ in some studies( Lanphear et al ), but it doesn't mean that its pointless to look into it.

    It feels like you're taking this a lot more emotionally than it is necessary and its likely a personal cause. Have a good life.

    Its not about “significance” insofar as judgment; its about furthering avenues of investigation based on irregularities noticed. The same goes for looking into pretty useless things such as planetary wobbles, etc.

    Yes, I know. I do have lucid moments, Daniel. Certainly, the dense emotional fog in which I operate blurs focus and obscures true meaningfulness, but crosses must be carried, must they not?

    Tell me, why do studies of racial/gender IQ comparisons appear most regularly, and predictably, in venues dedicated to political rhetoric? Must be, obviously, because those who fancy themselves pundits are the best qualified to comment on scientific research — right, Daniel? And to contribute to such noble efforts to quantify, absolutely, an issue of such overwhelming importance in the modern world. How could anything be more important than an average 0.07 IQ point difference between males and females? One can but tremble with excitement, nicht wahr?

    I really must commend our august betters in government for their unrelenting efforts to reduce the amount of tax money flowing to blacks and mexicans as a result of these revelations of inferior IQ performance. Also, it certainly is admirable of our merit-based economic model that women, demonstrably inferior (and emotional wrecks, to boot), will be denied equal opportunity in employment, since, natch, they ain’t equal.

    Thank you for pinpointing the immature, emotional basis of my contempt for IQ dicksizing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    If test-retest correlation is 0.9 or 0.95 as it is often reported then SD of test-retest difference is 6.7 or 4.7 IQ points, respectively for the population with the SD=15.
     
    I assisted for an IQ researcher for a year, working from a grant issued by NIH. The researcher was also a resident psychiatrist with Chestnut Lodge in Rockville, MD. (since closed)

    A legitimate IQ test, the Wechsler for example, is administered by a certified psychologist in a one-on-one interview format. Yes, there's reasons for that. The test package is sealed, and subsequently opened by the administrator, who signs off that the test was sealed. The packaged tests ain't cheap. The test materials are destroyed after completion. The test administrator certifies the results and notes the identification number of the test package on the record.

    There are batteries of achievement tests that IQ freaks have taken to calling "IQ" tests, upon which is based much of this bogus IQ statistics crap, promoted by the likes of, oh, Sailer and Richwine. These tests are NOT IQ tests.

    Not that there's anything wrong with achievement tests -- they serve a purpose well. That purpose, however is not to measure intelligence. Achievement tests are effective in assessing learning or training, not intelligence per se.

    There also exist quite useful batteries of aptitude tests. These also serve a purpose well, and are a damn sight more useful to practical assessment of potential ability and developed skill than any "IQ" test or achievement test.

    “The test materials are destroyed after completion.”

    This is an interesting aspect of this pseudoscience that measuring tools have to be destroyed in order not to pollute and affect future measurements. Kind of a Heisenberg issue. The problem is that who verifies the pseudoscientists if everything is so hush hush? What if the envelopes were empty in the first place? What if it is a big scam that even the believers do not believe in? It smell like Scientology and many other cults and scams in the past like Blavatsky or Gurdjieff. Those are all nonscientific endeavors that can’t pass the real science tests. But they hang on and somewhat work in limited environment of cultists and fools.

    much of this bogus IQ statistics crap, promoted by the likes of, oh, Sailer and Richwine

    Which tests, if any, these two are promoting is the least of the problem. Who are their enablers and what is their real job is what you should worry about?

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Just out of curiosity;

    What's your opinion, utu, on the rest of psychology? E.g. what about "big five", "emotional intelligence", "stereotype threat", "priming", "spiritual intelligence" and so on?
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Which tests, if any, these two are promoting is the least of the problem. Who are their enablers and what is their real job is what you should worry about?
     
    Well, in one sense, perhaps. But who has time for that? The major forces destroying America are not some club of IQ "researchers" bewailing 0.07 point differences.

    I just get exasperated some times, is all. Maybe comparing shoe-sizes might be a bigger waste of time, money and effort, but not by much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Peripatetic commenter

    Earth, this time. Feel free to be as resentful as you are moved to be about, um, Discrimination Theory. Frankly, I just don’t give a shit about that. If the broad can do the job better than the other applicants, she gets it.
     
    Of course, you gloss over the important issue: How do you determine if she can do the job?

    And the subsidiary question: In practice, is there any evidence that women do the job better than men?

    Restricting my attention to jobs in the tech field requiring high IQ, how does it work?

    In the tech field it tends to be impractical to give applicants IQ tests so we rely on interviews, and some can be pretty grueling interviews, as well as references, looking at what they have done before, and so on.

    Then we offer them the job and hopefully they accept.

    Then they start working and we get to see if they really have what it takes.

    The problem, of course, is that if we select a female candidate and she does not work out it is far harder to fire her than if we make a mistake on a male candidate.

    Bringing my personal experience into the equation I have worked with females in tech before and currently. I have met very few superstars and they tend to have different skill sets than males. They are often more detail oriented than males but far less determined to make something work and far less willing to move into uncharted areas than males are. In software maintenance the first is an asset but in software development the other two are big assets. I suspect the same is true in other tech fields.

    I have never been on a hiring committee looking at a female candidate so I cannot discuss whether or not these issues come up in the interview evaluations.

    However, my point is that at the candidate stage you simply do not know whether she will do the job better than the male candidates and there are lots of downsides to making the wrong choice. As a result we use heuristics, like average IQ of the sexes, the known differences in the variances of male and female IQ and in the area of simple bloody-minded determination to get the job done.

    And because we can fire male candidates more easily and with less costs than female candidates ...

    However, my point is that at the candidate stage you simply do not know whether she will do the job better than the male candidates

    True. Nor do you know if any male applicants will do the job better.

    There are aptitude tests, achievement tests, proficiency tests, “hands-on” real-time testing in situ, etc. Lots of tests, lots of time to interview and evaluate. Picking the chick with the big tits is a failure, so is not selecting the best candidate through a process of dispassionately evaluating merit.

    So, sorry, but we disagree. IQ is totally irrelevant. Ability, demonstrated ability is the key. Always. That’s based on my 40 years of experience in the workplace. Your mileage may vary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    Are you always so dishonest as to ignore the other part of my argument.

    We can fire males more easily than we can fire females, so the females have to be far better than the male candidates to be worth considering.

    Of course, other factors come into play as well. For example, if someone in the company vouches for the ability of the female candidate.

    However, all things being equal, the male candidate is less of a risk. If she was 25% better than the male candidate ... then I would lean towards hiring her.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Lynn has made a strong case for a male advantage in intelligence
     
    As measured, that is. And do keep in mind that a significant portion of the WAIS is oriented to analytical ability.

    and critics must now engage him on the detailed results he presents.
     
    Well, "must engage"? Not really. 4 points? Vanishingly trivial in real-world terms. Besides, who cares? If a female can carry the freight, she can do all the STEM she wants.

    After reading several comments of yours on this thread I am not sure whether you are troll, naive or worse.

    Vanishingly trivial in real-world terms.

    As I already mentioned in this thread, assuming normal distribution (no fat tail), identical SD and assuming IQ measures something which is very important for academic achievement, then it would mean (going by _IQ scores alone_, ie no psychological factors such as difference in interest) than more than 2/3 of PhD should be male in no discrimination scenario.

    Of course, there is strong possibility that males are more variable (because at quite a few other traits males ARE more variable and there are studies seeming to confirm that males ARE more variable in intelligence too).

    If a female can carry the freight, she can do all the STEM she wants

    If the broad can do the job better than the other applicants, she gets it.

    You seem to be misguided. I think most (if not all) regular participants in IQ related thread agree with the sentiment expressed above.
    We would love to see that only merit would decide about who would get a job.
    However, in a real world, there is a lot of pressure to hire a women over comparably competent (or even more competent) guy. In a recent grant I participated in, one of the measures about grant success was how many women participated and how many were in leading positions.
    Why? Because there are too few women in STEM. Why? Because, obviously, it’s because of discrimination.
    If you don’t know about this, then you are either naive, or live in a bubble. Or you are troll.

    I’ve noticed is that the nicer one is to a woman, especially if one remarks on how intelligent her actions are (never say “Gee, you’re smart!”), the nicer she is to me.

    This is completely not relevant to the comment you were replying to. The guy was not saying about whether a women are more nice or less nice, but whether they are more or less emotional. I do not say that women are or aren’t more emotional; I merely point that your comment was non-argument, hinting a troll behavior.

    The average variance for one person taking two or more IQ tests is 3 points

    This is true, however it is highly unlikely that in tests all men would go in one direction. That is, the variation (some getting worse results than usual, some getting better) would cancel each other out. That’s the basics.

    First thing: “Declarating” is not a word. Assuming you meant “declaring”, I will refrain from making a sharp retort regarding how you pulled “search for knowledge” out of your ass.

    A lot of commenters on unz.com are not native English speakers. I am from Poland, for example. Most of us realize that.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    After reading several comments of yours on this thread I am not sure whether you are troll, naive or worse.
     
    Worse. I am a trained, intelligent, experienced critical thinker who was quite successful for many years in an upper-level management role of a technology corporation.

    Mr. Sz, I do not give a tinker's dam what your opinion of mythical trollism might be. Not one solitary god-damn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. szopen says:
    @utu
    "The test materials are destroyed after completion."

    This is an interesting aspect of this pseudoscience that measuring tools have to be destroyed in order not to pollute and affect future measurements. Kind of a Heisenberg issue. The problem is that who verifies the pseudoscientists if everything is so hush hush? What if the envelopes were empty in the first place? What if it is a big scam that even the believers do not believe in? It smell like Scientology and many other cults and scams in the past like Blavatsky or Gurdjieff. Those are all nonscientific endeavors that can't pass the real science tests. But they hang on and somewhat work in limited environment of cultists and fools.

    much of this bogus IQ statistics crap, promoted by the likes of, oh, Sailer and Richwine

    Which tests, if any, these two are promoting is the least of the problem. Who are their enablers and what is their real job is what you should worry about?

    Just out of curiosity;

    What’s your opinion, utu, on the rest of psychology? E.g. what about “big five”, “emotional intelligence”, “stereotype threat”, “priming”, “spiritual intelligence” and so on?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    My opinion? You are very lucky because I am full of opinions. My starting position is to never give a benefit of doubt, assume it is a crap until proven otherwise. It works every well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @utu
    "The test materials are destroyed after completion."

    This is an interesting aspect of this pseudoscience that measuring tools have to be destroyed in order not to pollute and affect future measurements. Kind of a Heisenberg issue. The problem is that who verifies the pseudoscientists if everything is so hush hush? What if the envelopes were empty in the first place? What if it is a big scam that even the believers do not believe in? It smell like Scientology and many other cults and scams in the past like Blavatsky or Gurdjieff. Those are all nonscientific endeavors that can't pass the real science tests. But they hang on and somewhat work in limited environment of cultists and fools.

    much of this bogus IQ statistics crap, promoted by the likes of, oh, Sailer and Richwine

    Which tests, if any, these two are promoting is the least of the problem. Who are their enablers and what is their real job is what you should worry about?

    Which tests, if any, these two are promoting is the least of the problem. Who are their enablers and what is their real job is what you should worry about?

    Well, in one sense, perhaps. But who has time for that? The major forces destroying America are not some club of IQ “researchers” bewailing 0.07 point differences.

    I just get exasperated some times, is all. Maybe comparing shoe-sizes might be a bigger waste of time, money and effort, but not by much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    The major forces destroying America are not some club of IQ “researchers” bewailing 0.07 point differences.

    I hope you are right but then why do you seem to get triggered by it? The "0.007 point" issue certainly is ridiculous but whether the IQ cult has impact on people perception of reality and their ability to recognize the forces destroying this or that (never mind America) might be a very important question. The method is allegedly scientific. And science is allegedly about truth. And who has the truth has the killer argument. The truth is the most powerful rhetorical device. For good reason people in Soviet Union were propagandized that their system was the consequence of the process that was scientifically proven. Which power elite benefits the most from the memes that are being circulated and popularized by this blog and people like Murrays, Cochrans and Sailers? This brings us to the forces you have mentioned.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Your rejection of IQ tests seems to go so far that I put to you this test question. If you were credibly informed that the legilators in one First World polity were recorded over 15 years as having measured IQs of average 125 sd 6 and of another 115 sd 7 would you not feel confident that the former polity could be judged as the better governed by any common sense yardsticks? I tried thinking of European countries but maybe US states would do. Washington state versus Mississippi perhaps? Minnesota v. Alabama?....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @John Jeremiah Smith

    However, my point is that at the candidate stage you simply do not know whether she will do the job better than the male candidates
     
    True. Nor do you know if any male applicants will do the job better.

    There are aptitude tests, achievement tests, proficiency tests, "hands-on" real-time testing in situ, etc. Lots of tests, lots of time to interview and evaluate. Picking the chick with the big tits is a failure, so is not selecting the best candidate through a process of dispassionately evaluating merit.

    So, sorry, but we disagree. IQ is totally irrelevant. Ability, demonstrated ability is the key. Always. That's based on my 40 years of experience in the workplace. Your mileage may vary.

    Are you always so dishonest as to ignore the other part of my argument.

    We can fire males more easily than we can fire females, so the females have to be far better than the male candidates to be worth considering.

    Of course, other factors come into play as well. For example, if someone in the company vouches for the ability of the female candidate.

    However, all things being equal, the male candidate is less of a risk. If she was 25% better than the male candidate … then I would lean towards hiring her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Are you always so dishonest as to ignore the other part of my argument.

     

    Oh, of course. Dishonesty is my stock in trade.

    We can fire males more easily than we can fire females, so the females have to be far better than the male candidates to be worth considering.
     
    No, it's as easy to fire women as it is men, assuming "at will" employment. Some corporations, foolishly, fear lawsuits from women because of political climate, but that is irrelevant to hiring for merit.

    However, all things being equal, the male candidate is less of a risk. If she was 25% better than the male candidate … then I would lean towards hiring her.
     
    Suit yourself. My position remains solidly based in the principle of hiring merit over IQ. You may hire whomever you please -- no skin off my nose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @szopen
    After reading several comments of yours on this thread I am not sure whether you are troll, naive or worse.

    Vanishingly trivial in real-world terms.
     
    As I already mentioned in this thread, assuming normal distribution (no fat tail), identical SD and assuming IQ measures something which is very important for academic achievement, then it would mean (going by _IQ scores alone_, ie no psychological factors such as difference in interest) than more than 2/3 of PhD should be male in no discrimination scenario.

    Of course, there is strong possibility that males are more variable (because at quite a few other traits males ARE more variable and there are studies seeming to confirm that males ARE more variable in intelligence too).

    If a female can carry the freight, she can do all the STEM she wants
     

    If the broad can do the job better than the other applicants, she gets it.
     
    You seem to be misguided. I think most (if not all) regular participants in IQ related thread agree with the sentiment expressed above.
    We would love to see that only merit would decide about who would get a job.
    However, in a real world, there is a lot of pressure to hire a women over comparably competent (or even more competent) guy. In a recent grant I participated in, one of the measures about grant success was how many women participated and how many were in leading positions.
    Why? Because there are too few women in STEM. Why? Because, obviously, it's because of discrimination.
    If you don't know about this, then you are either naive, or live in a bubble. Or you are troll.


    I’ve noticed is that the nicer one is to a woman, especially if one remarks on how intelligent her actions are (never say “Gee, you’re smart!”), the nicer she is to me.
     
    This is completely not relevant to the comment you were replying to. The guy was not saying about whether a women are more nice or less nice, but whether they are more or less emotional. I do not say that women are or aren't more emotional; I merely point that your comment was non-argument, hinting a troll behavior.

    The average variance for one person taking two or more IQ tests is 3 points
     
    This is true, however it is highly unlikely that in tests all men would go in one direction. That is, the variation (some getting worse results than usual, some getting better) would cancel each other out. That's the basics.


    First thing: “Declarating” is not a word. Assuming you meant “declaring”, I will refrain from making a sharp retort regarding how you pulled “search for knowledge” out of your ass.
     
    A lot of commenters on unz.com are not native English speakers. I am from Poland, for example. Most of us realize that.

    After reading several comments of yours on this thread I am not sure whether you are troll, naive or worse.

    Worse. I am a trained, intelligent, experienced critical thinker who was quite successful for many years in an upper-level management role of a technology corporation.

    Mr. Sz, I do not give a tinker’s dam what your opinion of mythical trollism might be. Not one solitary god-damn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    If you are critical thinker, how comes you made such a basic error in thinking (handwaving group difference because of variation of individual scores)??

    I have to say that for not giving a damn about my opinion, you were very quick to boast that you are intelligent, critical thinking and successful :D :D

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    After reading several comments of yours on this thread I am not sure whether you are troll, naive or worse.
     
    Worse. I am a trained, intelligent, experienced critical thinker who was quite successful for many years in an upper-level management role of a technology corporation.

    Mr. Sz, I do not give a tinker's dam what your opinion of mythical trollism might be. Not one solitary god-damn.

    If you are critical thinker, how comes you made such a basic error in thinking (handwaving group difference because of variation of individual scores)??

    I have to say that for not giving a damn about my opinion, you were very quick to boast that you are intelligent, critical thinking and successful :D :D

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    If you are critical thinker, how comes you made such a basic error in thinking (handwaving group difference because of variation of individual scores)??
     
    No error was made. Not on my part, anyway. I assert, for good, practical and verifiable reason, that IQ does not mean shit when it comes to hiring valuable employees. Merit is what counts, and is all that counts. Now, you can roll several concepts into "merit" -- loyalty, work ethic, diligence, dedication, workplace social skills, etc.

    But IQ? No. Laughably "no".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Peripatetic commenter
    Are you always so dishonest as to ignore the other part of my argument.

    We can fire males more easily than we can fire females, so the females have to be far better than the male candidates to be worth considering.

    Of course, other factors come into play as well. For example, if someone in the company vouches for the ability of the female candidate.

    However, all things being equal, the male candidate is less of a risk. If she was 25% better than the male candidate ... then I would lean towards hiring her.

    Are you always so dishonest as to ignore the other part of my argument.

    Oh, of course. Dishonesty is my stock in trade.

    We can fire males more easily than we can fire females, so the females have to be far better than the male candidates to be worth considering.

    No, it’s as easy to fire women as it is men, assuming “at will” employment. Some corporations, foolishly, fear lawsuits from women because of political climate, but that is irrelevant to hiring for merit.

    However, all things being equal, the male candidate is less of a risk. If she was 25% better than the male candidate … then I would lean towards hiring her.

    Suit yourself. My position remains solidly based in the principle of hiring merit over IQ. You may hire whomever you please — no skin off my nose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @szopen
    If you are critical thinker, how comes you made such a basic error in thinking (handwaving group difference because of variation of individual scores)??

    I have to say that for not giving a damn about my opinion, you were very quick to boast that you are intelligent, critical thinking and successful :D :D

    If you are critical thinker, how comes you made such a basic error in thinking (handwaving group difference because of variation of individual scores)??

    No error was made. Not on my part, anyway. I assert, for good, practical and verifiable reason, that IQ does not mean shit when it comes to hiring valuable employees. Merit is what counts, and is all that counts. Now, you can roll several concepts into “merit” — loyalty, work ethic, diligence, dedication, workplace social skills, etc.

    But IQ? No. Laughably “no”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Which tests, if any, these two are promoting is the least of the problem. Who are their enablers and what is their real job is what you should worry about?
     
    Well, in one sense, perhaps. But who has time for that? The major forces destroying America are not some club of IQ "researchers" bewailing 0.07 point differences.

    I just get exasperated some times, is all. Maybe comparing shoe-sizes might be a bigger waste of time, money and effort, but not by much.

    The major forces destroying America are not some club of IQ “researchers” bewailing 0.07 point differences.

    I hope you are right but then why do you seem to get triggered by it? The “0.007 point” issue certainly is ridiculous but whether the IQ cult has impact on people perception of reality and their ability to recognize the forces destroying this or that (never mind America) might be a very important question. The method is allegedly scientific. And science is allegedly about truth. And who has the truth has the killer argument. The truth is the most powerful rhetorical device. For good reason people in Soviet Union were propagandized that their system was the consequence of the process that was scientifically proven. Which power elite benefits the most from the memes that are being circulated and popularized by this blog and people like Murrays, Cochrans and Sailers? This brings us to the forces you have mentioned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I hope you are right but then why do you seem to get triggered by it?
     
    Ah, it's just crankiness, basically. As mentioned above, I spent a year working with a researcher at NIH. Now, the research target was actually one for clinical psychology, specifically paranoid behavior, paranoid delusion. I never read the paper published, having moved on by then. However, I observed, mmm, maybe 30 WAIS interviews? Enough to convince me that IQ, as measured, and if regarded as some reflection of true intelligence, has relatively little impact on the ability of the individual to function in society -- particularly in terms of productive, cooperative, interactive function.

    Capiche? Thus my ready dismissal of IQ-centered ninny-ism. Sure, for a given job, but damn few, some level of higher intelligence may contribute to effectiveness. But, for 99% of jobs in America that non-Jews or non-Asians are allowed to hold? No way.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Which groups (your "power elites" is question begging) benefit in your opinion from those memes? Are the memes loud enough to have had any substantial effect at all? They haven't done much to help the white working and middle classes to stem the flow of cheap labor have they? And who benefits from that? Steve Sailer in particular has argued against US immigration policy and practice inthe interest of American workers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. utu says:
    @szopen
    Just out of curiosity;

    What's your opinion, utu, on the rest of psychology? E.g. what about "big five", "emotional intelligence", "stereotype threat", "priming", "spiritual intelligence" and so on?

    My opinion? You are very lucky because I am full of opinions. My starting position is to never give a benefit of doubt, assume it is a crap until proven otherwise. It works every well.

    Read More
    • Agree: John Jeremiah Smith
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I can see points of possible convergence. Like another pint?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @utu
    The major forces destroying America are not some club of IQ “researchers” bewailing 0.07 point differences.

    I hope you are right but then why do you seem to get triggered by it? The "0.007 point" issue certainly is ridiculous but whether the IQ cult has impact on people perception of reality and their ability to recognize the forces destroying this or that (never mind America) might be a very important question. The method is allegedly scientific. And science is allegedly about truth. And who has the truth has the killer argument. The truth is the most powerful rhetorical device. For good reason people in Soviet Union were propagandized that their system was the consequence of the process that was scientifically proven. Which power elite benefits the most from the memes that are being circulated and popularized by this blog and people like Murrays, Cochrans and Sailers? This brings us to the forces you have mentioned.

    I hope you are right but then why do you seem to get triggered by it?

    Ah, it’s just crankiness, basically. As mentioned above, I spent a year working with a researcher at NIH. Now, the research target was actually one for clinical psychology, specifically paranoid behavior, paranoid delusion. I never read the paper published, having moved on by then. However, I observed, mmm, maybe 30 WAIS interviews? Enough to convince me that IQ, as measured, and if regarded as some reflection of true intelligence, has relatively little impact on the ability of the individual to function in society — particularly in terms of productive, cooperative, interactive function.

    Capiche? Thus my ready dismissal of IQ-centered ninny-ism. Sure, for a given job, but damn few, some level of higher intelligence may contribute to effectiveness. But, for 99% of jobs in America that non-Jews or non-Asians are allowed to hold? No way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @phil
    Fortunately, we have more than people's subjective appraisals to go by when assessing the impact of IQ. Multiple regression analyses find that about 10 percent of the variance in people's earnings is accounted for by IQ differences. Charles Murray's research is consistent with the mainstream on this point. If investment income is included, IQ differences may account for more than 20 percent of the variance. See, for example, Marc Dailliard's analysis at humanvarieties.org.

    Gregory Clark ("The Son Also Rises", Princeton University) worked with the hypothesis that people seek social status and not income per se, and found social status to be as heritable as height over multiple generations.

    Of course, people's incomes are also affected by personality factors, structural shifts in the labor market (e.g., some industries or occupations boom while others experience decline), their health, and other influences.

    As Garett Jones has emphasized, IQ takes on even greater importance at the country level, which is one reason why IQ in the countries below the Sahara Desert is a hot topic. The research has big implications for Latin America as well.

    If you go to an annual conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research, you will find that all of the attendees can fit in one conference room at a hotel in a city like Albuquerque or San Antonio. By contrast, the annual meetings of the American Economic Association may be spread over all of the conference rooms of 6 hotels in New York or Philadelphia.

    Psychologists have lower average IQ than economists, who have lower average IQ than physicists. Some IQ research is deeply flawed, but the research that is well done is of great relevance, and it is much better to have it than no IQ research at all.
    , @utu
    Capiche? - Yes, yes, but let me tell you that I think that the tests that you were administering so reverentially belong to the same crappitude space as the IQ tests and the IQ-centered ninny-ism you are so ready to dismiss. I would be with you but you are still not dismissive enough to my taste.
    , @James Thompson
    I do not know if you will find it relevant, but a lot of work on this issue has been done by Schmidt. I have mentioned him several times in the blog, but here is a relevant one.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/jobs-iq-tests-versus-interviews

    There is also good work by Paul Sackett.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-college-admission-tests-predict
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/can-tests-predict-academic-outcomes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @thisAccount
    Thanks for taking my question to Lynn. Unfortunately does not explain why he reported a value of d = 0.57 for the Camarata & Woodcock paper in table 7 of his review. I assume this and similar stuff were just mistakes then

    Agree it needs more explanation, and needs justification for the subtests chosen. Table 3 shows no difference for “General Intellectual Ability” and 2.2 scaled points for “Fluid Reasoning”, which divided by a presumed standard deviation of 11.68 comes to 0.19 Furthermore, there are more women than men, and the sample sizes are rather small for this analysis.

    I will have to look further at this, but thanks for finding the relevant table.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. phil says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    I hope you are right but then why do you seem to get triggered by it?
     
    Ah, it's just crankiness, basically. As mentioned above, I spent a year working with a researcher at NIH. Now, the research target was actually one for clinical psychology, specifically paranoid behavior, paranoid delusion. I never read the paper published, having moved on by then. However, I observed, mmm, maybe 30 WAIS interviews? Enough to convince me that IQ, as measured, and if regarded as some reflection of true intelligence, has relatively little impact on the ability of the individual to function in society -- particularly in terms of productive, cooperative, interactive function.

    Capiche? Thus my ready dismissal of IQ-centered ninny-ism. Sure, for a given job, but damn few, some level of higher intelligence may contribute to effectiveness. But, for 99% of jobs in America that non-Jews or non-Asians are allowed to hold? No way.

    Fortunately, we have more than people’s subjective appraisals to go by when assessing the impact of IQ. Multiple regression analyses find that about 10 percent of the variance in people’s earnings is accounted for by IQ differences. Charles Murray’s research is consistent with the mainstream on this point. If investment income is included, IQ differences may account for more than 20 percent of the variance. See, for example, Marc Dailliard’s analysis at humanvarieties.org.

    Gregory Clark (“The Son Also Rises”, Princeton University) worked with the hypothesis that people seek social status and not income per se, and found social status to be as heritable as height over multiple generations.

    Of course, people’s incomes are also affected by personality factors, structural shifts in the labor market (e.g., some industries or occupations boom while others experience decline), their health, and other influences.

    As Garett Jones has emphasized, IQ takes on even greater importance at the country level, which is one reason why IQ in the countries below the Sahara Desert is a hot topic. The research has big implications for Latin America as well.

    If you go to an annual conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research, you will find that all of the attendees can fit in one conference room at a hotel in a city like Albuquerque or San Antonio. By contrast, the annual meetings of the American Economic Association may be spread over all of the conference rooms of 6 hotels in New York or Philadelphia.

    Psychologists have lower average IQ than economists, who have lower average IQ than physicists. Some IQ research is deeply flawed, but the research that is well done is of great relevance, and it is much better to have it than no IQ research at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    phil, you're not paying attention. Is it a surprise that intelligent people tend to have more income? Really, think about it: Is it a shock? Not at all ... but ... 10% variance over a lifetime? Hmm... seems a requirement it is not.

    All of which is neither here nor there. You IQ freaks may plot to your hearts' content, and it will never amount to a hill of beans. Oh, my my my, women are inferior, yep, by 0.17 IQ points. How can we EVER allow them dumb broads to hold public office, or even work in a bank? Or, hell, be employed at all? They should stay at home, fuck the lord of the castle, clean house and watch the kids.

    Negros? Messicans? God forbid. They are so dumb they can hardly walk north. Chinks? Well, sometimes smart, but never creative, right? No Chinee ever invented a damn thing, right?

    I know what you are, phil. Seen people like you, read people like you, avoided people like you for most of my life. All of your "research", all of your "testing", all of your preconceptions have achieved what, exactly? Zippo. Zilch. Nada. Messicans have invaded the country. Negros have jobs in government. Women hold executive positions, dumb as rocks though they be.

    It matters not in the slightest whether your IQ obsession is true. What matters is that you IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast. Nobody gives a shit who's smart and who's not. All that matters is wealth and power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Wizard of Oz
    I am not one who either by ideology or as a critical amateur has any great problem in believing that a competent large study of Nigerians has returned an IQ average of 70 on tests which return 85 for African-Americans and 100 for NW Europeans. And I am willing to take the precaution of not opening my country's permanent immigration programs indiscriminately to people whose profile includes such an average IQ whatever the cause. But.....

    Otherwise I find that figure of 70 to be lacking in the info it conveys. What is the parasite and disease load that might be overcome in a generation or two?
    More important: where is that part of Africa in terms of the Flynn Effect function or curve. If the Flynn Effect produces a 3 point gain every 10 years can it not reasonably be expected that the Nigerian average will probably reach 90 in 70-75 years? That's not far short of Israel! In short not a basket case uf not one's number one choice for randomly selected immigrants.

    A related issue is the evidence that the Flynn Effect is seen strongly evidenced on the presumed culture fair Raven's Matrices, and that Raven's are a most g laden measure of fluid intelligence compared with various vocabulary and other verbal and math tests. How come?

    And does the answer have any and what relation to my (true I believe) observation that Ravens' tests are very much subject to training/practice effects? There must be data on this. I wonder how many sittings or practices of (the oh so boring) Ravens' tests over what period of time produce significantly higher scores? (And where does this stand in relation to the Flynn Effect? It would I assume be part of it at some stage as the unsophisticated first became modestly test sophisticated and then became used to tests at school - and abstract geometrical figures - which gave some preparation for Ravens').

    Thanks. Lots of points. Yes, you can train people to do well on intelligence tests. Teaching to the test is not very interesting, unless thereby you can raise intelligence on another independent test. Faven’s are not supposed to be given repeatedly.
    Flynn effects are expected for poor countries, but the rate of convergence may be slow. Could be 90 years, could be much longer. See special issue of Intelligence on Flynn Effect.
    Parasite load and general ill health are very probably factors lowering scores, and gradual improvements in public health may be bringing about real rises in intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Many thanks. I don't think my country is ready for mass African immigration yet, even East African nomadic people. We have been practising on doing good to our indigenous nomadic hunter gatherers for generations, with huge acceleration of spending and handwringing for 40+ years, and we don't seem to have got the knack. My school chaplain had been a missionary in the Sudan (as well as preparing for us by service in an English gaol). We never held a commission of inquiry into how much good he did. But the memory encourages the Peace Corp-ish idea that we could encourage 30ish public servsnts to take sabbaticals in Africa.... Ah, I could keep tbis dresm going but the breakfast gong sounds.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Allow my tiny Aspergerish component to mention #102
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. dearieme says:

    Allow me to repeat my earlier question: “Are there other topics on which women might have better scores but which are not routinely measured in tests?” There must be many but I’ve thought of one.

    As part of an IQ test you could have (say) three women and three men walk in front of the test-takers, and then (unannounced in advance) there would be questions in the test about their clothes, hair, shoes, deportment, and so on.

    Betcha the women test-takers would score more than the men. Now, how could this idea be converted to a cheap paper-and-pencil test that would be practical? Use of videos, perhaps?

    Surely keen observation, and retention of the observations, could be a legit part of a test of intellectual ability? Put otherwise: are IQ tests (slightly) biased against women because of the particular intellectual skills included and excluded? Is the selection of these test components essentially arbitrary?

    I wonder whether clever women would do better than stupid ones in the clothes test? In other words, would it (presumably for each sex separately) broadly correlate with one or more of the other components of an IQ test?

    Doc T will no doubt now tell me this idea was tested decades ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    To continue: could it be that the desire for cheap paper-and-pencil tests has inadvertently biased the tests against women? That sounds just about plausible to me. Paper-and-pencil probably suits thing-oriented people (men and boys) rather than people-oriented people (women and girls).
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Allow me JT to extend the thought into a question I meant to ask when you mentioned standsardised tssts and I then found more references I think in the Flynn comments on Lynn.

    If the tests have been standardised to ensure males and females have the same average scores how come men in large samples are scoring higher than women? I can see the logical possibility of it occurring amongst test subjects whose scores are well above (or I suppose below) average but I struggle to make sense of it.
    , @Santoculto
    IQ tests discriminate social/empathizing/emotional skills where women tend to be traditionally better and/OR inclined than men. IQ tests analyze cognitive skills without the participation of emotions or with its neutralization/hipo expression.

    But the ultimate test of emotional intelligence would be, one of this ultimate tests: How good you are to understand people which are different than you??

    Women is great to understand other as men is great to understand other men, on avg. But not great to understand men as well...

    Other ultimate test: How good you are to understand/recognize real behavioral patterns of many different types of people??

    Again, women on avg don't appear to be better than men, just more inclined.

    More inclined =/= knowledgeable
    Intensity/frequency =/= quality

    Women use more their receptive empathetic approach than men who are more inclined to use their defensive and aggressive empathetic/put in other perspective/understand other pattern with given intentionality. Because women are more empathetically receptive it's give the impression that they are considerably better than men in emotional skills. It's more reasonable in my view try to disarm other people and forge trustworthy groups but women on avg don't evolved enough to recognize threats/predators.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. dearieme says:
    @dearieme
    Allow me to repeat my earlier question: "Are there other topics on which women might have better scores but which are not routinely measured in tests?" There must be many but I've thought of one.

    As part of an IQ test you could have (say) three women and three men walk in front of the test-takers, and then (unannounced in advance) there would be questions in the test about their clothes, hair, shoes, deportment, and so on.

    Betcha the women test-takers would score more than the men. Now, how could this idea be converted to a cheap paper-and-pencil test that would be practical? Use of videos, perhaps?

    Surely keen observation, and retention of the observations, could be a legit part of a test of intellectual ability? Put otherwise: are IQ tests (slightly) biased against women because of the particular intellectual skills included and excluded? Is the selection of these test components essentially arbitrary?

    I wonder whether clever women would do better than stupid ones in the clothes test? In other words, would it (presumably for each sex separately) broadly correlate with one or more of the other components of an IQ test?


    Doc T will no doubt now tell me this idea was tested decades ago.

    To continue: could it be that the desire for cheap paper-and-pencil tests has inadvertently biased the tests against women? That sounds just about plausible to me. Paper-and-pencil probably suits thing-oriented people (men and boys) rather than people-oriented people (women and girls).

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Thanks. There are many tests which would allow men and women to exhibit particular skills. Given time and resources we could look at dress, deportment, identification of cars, supermarket navigation, joke-telling, general knowledge quizzes and working out the best way to organize events. Many of those have been studied. Tests, however, have to be shorter and cheaper than observing real life. Hence the virtues of something simple like digit span, digit symbol coding, simple maths, or a short vocabulary test, simply because they have predictive power. You need something which has a good prediction/time-taken ratio.
    If noting what people are wearing predicts achievement in life, then by all means study it. I think that getting people to name plants would be better, and easier to do.
    Here is one test on which women may do better.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/look-in-my-eyes-you-sensitive-clever
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @James Thompson
    Thanks. Lots of points. Yes, you can train people to do well on intelligence tests. Teaching to the test is not very interesting, unless thereby you can raise intelligence on another independent test. Faven's are not supposed to be given repeatedly.
    Flynn effects are expected for poor countries, but the rate of convergence may be slow. Could be 90 years, could be much longer. See special issue of Intelligence on Flynn Effect.
    Parasite load and general ill health are very probably factors lowering scores, and gradual improvements in public health may be bringing about real rises in intelligence.

    Many thanks. I don’t think my country is ready for mass African immigration yet, even East African nomadic people. We have been practising on doing good to our indigenous nomadic hunter gatherers for generations, with huge acceleration of spending and handwringing for 40+ years, and we don’t seem to have got the knack. My school chaplain had been a missionary in the Sudan (as well as preparing for us by service in an English gaol). We never held a commission of inquiry into how much good he did. But the memory encourages the Peace Corp-ish idea that we could encourage 30ish public servsnts to take sabbaticals in Africa…. Ah, I could keep tbis dresm going but the breakfast gong sounds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    I hope you are right but then why do you seem to get triggered by it?
     
    Ah, it's just crankiness, basically. As mentioned above, I spent a year working with a researcher at NIH. Now, the research target was actually one for clinical psychology, specifically paranoid behavior, paranoid delusion. I never read the paper published, having moved on by then. However, I observed, mmm, maybe 30 WAIS interviews? Enough to convince me that IQ, as measured, and if regarded as some reflection of true intelligence, has relatively little impact on the ability of the individual to function in society -- particularly in terms of productive, cooperative, interactive function.

    Capiche? Thus my ready dismissal of IQ-centered ninny-ism. Sure, for a given job, but damn few, some level of higher intelligence may contribute to effectiveness. But, for 99% of jobs in America that non-Jews or non-Asians are allowed to hold? No way.

    Capiche? – Yes, yes, but let me tell you that I think that the tests that you were administering so reverentially belong to the same crappitude space as the IQ tests and the IQ-centered ninny-ism you are so ready to dismiss. I would be with you but you are still not dismissive enough to my taste.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @phil
    Fortunately, we have more than people's subjective appraisals to go by when assessing the impact of IQ. Multiple regression analyses find that about 10 percent of the variance in people's earnings is accounted for by IQ differences. Charles Murray's research is consistent with the mainstream on this point. If investment income is included, IQ differences may account for more than 20 percent of the variance. See, for example, Marc Dailliard's analysis at humanvarieties.org.

    Gregory Clark ("The Son Also Rises", Princeton University) worked with the hypothesis that people seek social status and not income per se, and found social status to be as heritable as height over multiple generations.

    Of course, people's incomes are also affected by personality factors, structural shifts in the labor market (e.g., some industries or occupations boom while others experience decline), their health, and other influences.

    As Garett Jones has emphasized, IQ takes on even greater importance at the country level, which is one reason why IQ in the countries below the Sahara Desert is a hot topic. The research has big implications for Latin America as well.

    If you go to an annual conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research, you will find that all of the attendees can fit in one conference room at a hotel in a city like Albuquerque or San Antonio. By contrast, the annual meetings of the American Economic Association may be spread over all of the conference rooms of 6 hotels in New York or Philadelphia.

    Psychologists have lower average IQ than economists, who have lower average IQ than physicists. Some IQ research is deeply flawed, but the research that is well done is of great relevance, and it is much better to have it than no IQ research at all.

    phil, you’re not paying attention. Is it a surprise that intelligent people tend to have more income? Really, think about it: Is it a shock? Not at all … but … 10% variance over a lifetime? Hmm… seems a requirement it is not.

    All of which is neither here nor there. You IQ freaks may plot to your hearts’ content, and it will never amount to a hill of beans. Oh, my my my, women are inferior, yep, by 0.17 IQ points. How can we EVER allow them dumb broads to hold public office, or even work in a bank? Or, hell, be employed at all? They should stay at home, fuck the lord of the castle, clean house and watch the kids.

    Negros? Messicans? God forbid. They are so dumb they can hardly walk north. Chinks? Well, sometimes smart, but never creative, right? No Chinee ever invented a damn thing, right?

    I know what you are, phil. Seen people like you, read people like you, avoided people like you for most of my life. All of your “research”, all of your “testing”, all of your preconceptions have achieved what, exactly? Zippo. Zilch. Nada. Messicans have invaded the country. Negros have jobs in government. Women hold executive positions, dumb as rocks though they be.

    It matters not in the slightest whether your IQ obsession is true. What matters is that you IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast. Nobody gives a shit who’s smart and who’s not. All that matters is wealth and power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Wealth and power relate more with a combination of astuteness/dark emotional intelligence and cognitive skills/intelligence.

    It's indirectly correlated with intelligence at least the type of intelligence IQistics love.

    Not always about dark emotional intelligence but no doubt about a combination of the "best" of empathizing and the "best" of systemizing.

    Indeed if you just repeat ad exhaustium the current narrative your chances to increase your social status/success will be higher specially if you are capable to be inventive above this ideological signaling.
    , @utu
    All that matters is wealth and power. Finally. Good. And now you should be ready to make the next step. You really think that "IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast"? To the contrary. They are very important for the system. They are providing the missing lynchpin for the foundation of the so called meritocracy? As I said earlier a truth is the most powerful rhetorical device. Who possess that wins. But what is the truth? It really does not matter as long people think it is. This is the job for this blog and the IQ-nutters like Murray, Cochran and Sailer to convince people of the truth of IQ determinism and the meme that the ruling caste and elite have higher IQ and thus are the most deserving of their positions. And the issues like that the women or blacks have lower IQ that somehow gets you all worked up are just distractions, consolation prizes, scraps from the masters' table for the masses but chiefly the incentives for the useful idiots to continue the work for free and against their interest in the factory where the consent is manufactured and where from the memes are spread for the benefit of the status quo.
    , @phil
    In the recent survey of IQ researchers, it so happens that Steve Sailer , along with Anatoly Karlin, was singled out by a preponderence of respondents as having accurately reported on IQ research. On the other hand, the New York Times, the Economist, National Public Radio, etc. were widely criticized as ignoring or misrepresenting the research, even when it has, in many cases, been subject to replication.

    There is no single factor that accounts for a majority of the variance in people's labor market earnings, but of the factors that matter, IQ is first or second in importance (conscientiousness/work ethic also being very important). Nobel Laureate James Heckman wrote a critical review of The Bell Curve after it was published, but later lauded the book for breaking the taboo about including IQ in discussions of earnings. Hechman's own regressions lead him to conclude that improving the cognitive ability of A
    , @phil
    No single factor accounts for a majority of the variance in people's labor market earnings. Of the factors that do matter, IQ and conscientiousness/work ethic are especially important. Nobel Laureate James Heckman wrote a critical review of The Bell Curve after it was published, but later lauded the book for breaking the taboo about discussing the role of IQ in people's lives. His own regressions led him to argue that the single most important policy reform available for improving the lives of African-Americans lies in pre-school education to enhance their cognitive skills and conscientiousness. I happen to doubt the efficacy of his policy proposals, but I am glad that he joined the discussion in a constructive way instead of simply being a naysayer.

    Your comment seems less a constructive engagement about the relevance of IQ and more a lament about the direction in which the political and social world has gone. I was disappointed by your resort to a personal attack and profanity.

    I am grateful for this article by Dr. Thompson and the new issue of Mankind Quarterly. Other publications won't touch the matter of sex differences in IQ.

    , @szopen

    Oh, my my my, women are inferior, yep, by 0.17 IQ points. How can we EVER allow them dumb broads to hold public office, or even work in a bank? Or, hell, be employed at all? They should stay at home, fuck the lord of the castle, clean house and watch the kids.
     
    Do you realize that you are creating imaginary opponents with imaginary views? Do you even understand the difference between "average" and "every one"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @dearieme
    Allow me to repeat my earlier question: "Are there other topics on which women might have better scores but which are not routinely measured in tests?" There must be many but I've thought of one.

    As part of an IQ test you could have (say) three women and three men walk in front of the test-takers, and then (unannounced in advance) there would be questions in the test about their clothes, hair, shoes, deportment, and so on.

    Betcha the women test-takers would score more than the men. Now, how could this idea be converted to a cheap paper-and-pencil test that would be practical? Use of videos, perhaps?

    Surely keen observation, and retention of the observations, could be a legit part of a test of intellectual ability? Put otherwise: are IQ tests (slightly) biased against women because of the particular intellectual skills included and excluded? Is the selection of these test components essentially arbitrary?

    I wonder whether clever women would do better than stupid ones in the clothes test? In other words, would it (presumably for each sex separately) broadly correlate with one or more of the other components of an IQ test?


    Doc T will no doubt now tell me this idea was tested decades ago.

    Allow me JT to extend the thought into a question I meant to ask when you mentioned standsardised tssts and I then found more references I think in the Flynn comments on Lynn.

    If the tests have been standardised to ensure males and females have the same average scores how come men in large samples are scoring higher than women? I can see the logical possibility of it occurring amongst test subjects whose scores are well above (or I suppose below) average but I struggle to make sense of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    The argument is that men are a little bit brighter overall, and brighter on spatial tasks, and that, despite test standardization trying to blot out this difference, it still comes out in testing and in real life. However, as always, we have to check all the data to make sure that the claimed male advantage is really true, and look carefully at the sample representativeness and the broad range of tests used.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @utu
    My opinion? You are very lucky because I am full of opinions. My starting position is to never give a benefit of doubt, assume it is a crap until proven otherwise. It works every well.

    I can see points of possible convergence. Like another pint?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @CanSpeccy

    After onset of adulthood.
     
    Which occurs earlier in girls than in boys and earlier in some individual than others whichever the sex, which rather makes nonsense of measuring IQ of children who vary widely in pace of development, the variation in part likely due to diet and other environmental factors.

    Likely??

    Varies more because it’s a period of development specially among individuals/children but individual variation seems a constant throughout life and its likely due environmental noise maybe less where people tend to be better for example a person who are more verbally bright than non verbal it’s likely that she/he will be more constantly better on verbal than in non verbal (or n).

    Better = more confident.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @utu
    The major forces destroying America are not some club of IQ “researchers” bewailing 0.07 point differences.

    I hope you are right but then why do you seem to get triggered by it? The "0.007 point" issue certainly is ridiculous but whether the IQ cult has impact on people perception of reality and their ability to recognize the forces destroying this or that (never mind America) might be a very important question. The method is allegedly scientific. And science is allegedly about truth. And who has the truth has the killer argument. The truth is the most powerful rhetorical device. For good reason people in Soviet Union were propagandized that their system was the consequence of the process that was scientifically proven. Which power elite benefits the most from the memes that are being circulated and popularized by this blog and people like Murrays, Cochrans and Sailers? This brings us to the forces you have mentioned.

    Which groups (your “power elites” is question begging) benefit in your opinion from those memes? Are the memes loud enough to have had any substantial effect at all? They haven’t done much to help the white working and middle classes to stem the flow of cheap labor have they? And who benefits from that? Steve Sailer in particular has argued against US immigration policy and practice inthe interest of American workers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Steve Sailer in particular has argued against US immigration policy and practice in the interest of American workers.

    If Steve Sailer solely argued about the interest of American workers or if Breitbart was solely about national Bannonism w/o strong pro Zionist and anti-Iran angle they would be allowed to scribble their messages only on stalls of public toilet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @dearieme
    Allow me to repeat my earlier question: "Are there other topics on which women might have better scores but which are not routinely measured in tests?" There must be many but I've thought of one.

    As part of an IQ test you could have (say) three women and three men walk in front of the test-takers, and then (unannounced in advance) there would be questions in the test about their clothes, hair, shoes, deportment, and so on.

    Betcha the women test-takers would score more than the men. Now, how could this idea be converted to a cheap paper-and-pencil test that would be practical? Use of videos, perhaps?

    Surely keen observation, and retention of the observations, could be a legit part of a test of intellectual ability? Put otherwise: are IQ tests (slightly) biased against women because of the particular intellectual skills included and excluded? Is the selection of these test components essentially arbitrary?

    I wonder whether clever women would do better than stupid ones in the clothes test? In other words, would it (presumably for each sex separately) broadly correlate with one or more of the other components of an IQ test?


    Doc T will no doubt now tell me this idea was tested decades ago.

    IQ tests discriminate social/empathizing/emotional skills where women tend to be traditionally better and/OR inclined than men. IQ tests analyze cognitive skills without the participation of emotions or with its neutralization/hipo expression.

    But the ultimate test of emotional intelligence would be, one of this ultimate tests: How good you are to understand people which are different than you??

    Women is great to understand other as men is great to understand other men, on avg. But not great to understand men as well…

    Other ultimate test: How good you are to understand/recognize real behavioral patterns of many different types of people??

    Again, women on avg don’t appear to be better than men, just more inclined.

    More inclined =/= knowledgeable
    Intensity/frequency =/= quality

    Women use more their receptive empathetic approach than men who are more inclined to use their defensive and aggressive empathetic/put in other perspective/understand other pattern with given intentionality. Because women are more empathetically receptive it’s give the impression that they are considerably better than men in emotional skills. It’s more reasonable in my view try to disarm other people and forge trustworthy groups but women on avg don’t evolved enough to recognize threats/predators.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Which tests, if any, these two are promoting is the least of the problem. Who are their enablers and what is their real job is what you should worry about?
     
    Well, in one sense, perhaps. But who has time for that? The major forces destroying America are not some club of IQ "researchers" bewailing 0.07 point differences.

    I just get exasperated some times, is all. Maybe comparing shoe-sizes might be a bigger waste of time, money and effort, but not by much.

    Your rejection of IQ tests seems to go so far that I put to you this test question. If you were credibly informed that the legilators in one First World polity were recorded over 15 years as having measured IQs of average 125 sd 6 and of another 115 sd 7 would you not feel confident that the former polity could be judged as the better governed by any common sense yardsticks? I tried thinking of European countries but maybe US states would do. Washington state versus Mississippi perhaps? Minnesota v. Alabama?….

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Your rejection of IQ tests seems to go so far
     
    I don't reject IQ tests -- I mean only that I would not hire someone based on his or her IQ score being higher than other candidates. In general -- and feel free to disagree -- I believe it takes a solid ten IQ points for one to detect any real difference from one person to another. You'll see a difference in noticeable awareness, problem-solving, vocabulary, analytical ability, etc. from 100-110, again 110-120, again 120-130, and so forth. Just my opinion.

    As far as your "legislators" proposal goes, I think it is entirely outside the scope of reality. The most salient aspect of government is its propensity to corruption, and that tends to exclude any "intelligence" effects.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @James Thompson
    Thanks. Lots of points. Yes, you can train people to do well on intelligence tests. Teaching to the test is not very interesting, unless thereby you can raise intelligence on another independent test. Faven's are not supposed to be given repeatedly.
    Flynn effects are expected for poor countries, but the rate of convergence may be slow. Could be 90 years, could be much longer. See special issue of Intelligence on Flynn Effect.
    Parasite load and general ill health are very probably factors lowering scores, and gradual improvements in public health may be bringing about real rises in intelligence.

    Allow my tiny Aspergerish component to mention #102

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Allowed, and answered, as I slowly work through the comments. By the way, I don't think that attention to detail on your part is a disorder.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @John Jeremiah Smith
    phil, you're not paying attention. Is it a surprise that intelligent people tend to have more income? Really, think about it: Is it a shock? Not at all ... but ... 10% variance over a lifetime? Hmm... seems a requirement it is not.

    All of which is neither here nor there. You IQ freaks may plot to your hearts' content, and it will never amount to a hill of beans. Oh, my my my, women are inferior, yep, by 0.17 IQ points. How can we EVER allow them dumb broads to hold public office, or even work in a bank? Or, hell, be employed at all? They should stay at home, fuck the lord of the castle, clean house and watch the kids.

    Negros? Messicans? God forbid. They are so dumb they can hardly walk north. Chinks? Well, sometimes smart, but never creative, right? No Chinee ever invented a damn thing, right?

    I know what you are, phil. Seen people like you, read people like you, avoided people like you for most of my life. All of your "research", all of your "testing", all of your preconceptions have achieved what, exactly? Zippo. Zilch. Nada. Messicans have invaded the country. Negros have jobs in government. Women hold executive positions, dumb as rocks though they be.

    It matters not in the slightest whether your IQ obsession is true. What matters is that you IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast. Nobody gives a shit who's smart and who's not. All that matters is wealth and power.

    Wealth and power relate more with a combination of astuteness/dark emotional intelligence and cognitive skills/intelligence.

    It’s indirectly correlated with intelligence at least the type of intelligence IQistics love.

    Not always about dark emotional intelligence but no doubt about a combination of the “best” of empathizing and the “best” of systemizing.

    Indeed if you just repeat ad exhaustium the current narrative your chances to increase your social status/success will be higher specially if you are capable to be inventive above this ideological signaling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    phil, you're not paying attention. Is it a surprise that intelligent people tend to have more income? Really, think about it: Is it a shock? Not at all ... but ... 10% variance over a lifetime? Hmm... seems a requirement it is not.

    All of which is neither here nor there. You IQ freaks may plot to your hearts' content, and it will never amount to a hill of beans. Oh, my my my, women are inferior, yep, by 0.17 IQ points. How can we EVER allow them dumb broads to hold public office, or even work in a bank? Or, hell, be employed at all? They should stay at home, fuck the lord of the castle, clean house and watch the kids.

    Negros? Messicans? God forbid. They are so dumb they can hardly walk north. Chinks? Well, sometimes smart, but never creative, right? No Chinee ever invented a damn thing, right?

    I know what you are, phil. Seen people like you, read people like you, avoided people like you for most of my life. All of your "research", all of your "testing", all of your preconceptions have achieved what, exactly? Zippo. Zilch. Nada. Messicans have invaded the country. Negros have jobs in government. Women hold executive positions, dumb as rocks though they be.

    It matters not in the slightest whether your IQ obsession is true. What matters is that you IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast. Nobody gives a shit who's smart and who's not. All that matters is wealth and power.

    All that matters is wealth and power. Finally. Good. And now you should be ready to make the next step. You really think that “IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast”? To the contrary. They are very important for the system. They are providing the missing lynchpin for the foundation of the so called meritocracy? As I said earlier a truth is the most powerful rhetorical device. Who possess that wins. But what is the truth? It really does not matter as long people think it is. This is the job for this blog and the IQ-nutters like Murray, Cochran and Sailer to convince people of the truth of IQ determinism and the meme that the ruling caste and elite have higher IQ and thus are the most deserving of their positions. And the issues like that the women or blacks have lower IQ that somehow gets you all worked up are just distractions, consolation prizes, scraps from the masters’ table for the masses but chiefly the incentives for the useful idiots to continue the work for free and against their interest in the factory where the consent is manufactured and where from the memes are spread for the benefit of the status quo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    All that matters is wealth and power. Finally. Good.
     
    Ayup. You are entirely correct. Or, should I dismiss everything you say, just on general principles? ;-)

    If you keep making inescapable, dismal points like that, no one is going to talk to you. I think you'd better find yourself a conspiracy somewhere, and whomp the hell out of it on this blog, or any blog.

    Sometimes I think I'm living in a parody of Monty Python's Holy Grail. Yeah, I said it, a parody!
    , @John Jeremiah Smith
    I feel I must add "Holy crap! A goddamn revolutionary who better watch what he says."

    That one is not particularly dangerous, but don't throw caution to the winds. The FBI really does send very friendly, conversational people out to talk to you. Using phrases like "What do you think should be done about that?" and "So-and-so says such-and-such. Is that something you would agree with?" and "Nice place you have here. You must have worked very hard to achieve all this." and "Your wife works for the county schools, right?"

    Friendly. Mild-mannered. Scared the bejeezus outame.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith
    I feel I must add "Holy crap! A goddamn revolutionary who better watch what he says."

    That one is not particularly dangerous, but don't throw caution to the winds. The FBI really does send very friendly, conversational people out to talk to you. Using phrases like "What do you think should be done about that?" and "So-and-so says such-and-such. Is that something you would agree with?" and "Nice place you have here. You must have worked very hard to achieve all this." and "Your wife works for the county schools, right?"

    Friendly. Mild-mannered. Scared the bejeezus outame.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Which groups (your "power elites" is question begging) benefit in your opinion from those memes? Are the memes loud enough to have had any substantial effect at all? They haven't done much to help the white working and middle classes to stem the flow of cheap labor have they? And who benefits from that? Steve Sailer in particular has argued against US immigration policy and practice inthe interest of American workers.

    Steve Sailer in particular has argued against US immigration policy and practice in the interest of American workers.

    If Steve Sailer solely argued about the interest of American workers or if Breitbart was solely about national Bannonism w/o strong pro Zionist and anti-Iran angle they would be allowed to scribble their messages only on stalls of public toilet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    So, to repeat, who are the power elites suited by Steve's memes and why does it suit them? And how far does it help make what he writes into widespread memes (which I doubt they are)?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Mark Presco says: • Website

    James Thompson tries to make a scientific argument for the under representation of women in certain areas by crunching the only raw data available, IQ. I have to agree with John Jeremiah Smith that this is a bad approach, but I can’t agree with some of his other arguments. Let me use another data set to make the same point.

    The only way women are going to be equally represented in management is do it the same way men did it: create their fair share of the pie. If women had created their fair share of the businesses and jobs then they would be equally represented in management because they would be CEOs of their own companies. The glass ceiling exists because women are totally dependent on men to promote them. If women have not shown an equal ability to create successful businesses, why should men assume they are equally qualified to run them.

    There are many reasons the percentage of female CEOs do not track IQ. One reason is NOT some white male good old boy system. Successful businesses are survivors of ruthless cutthroat competition and are as objective as is possible in this world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    The only way women are going to be equally represented in management is do it the same way men did it: create their fair share of the pie. If women had created their fair share of the businesses and jobs then they would be equally represented in management because they would be CEOs of their own companies. The glass ceiling exists because women are totally dependent on men to promote them.
     
    Valid counterpoints, agreed. In defense of my position, permit me to re-state that I refer solely to hiring, to job assignment, to task performance in at-will employment, i.e. as HR Director, who do I hire and why?

    Building a successful company and becoming CEO is not a "Who do I hire and why?" set of conditions; it is entrepeneurial and participatory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Wizard of Oz
    Your rejection of IQ tests seems to go so far that I put to you this test question. If you were credibly informed that the legilators in one First World polity were recorded over 15 years as having measured IQs of average 125 sd 6 and of another 115 sd 7 would you not feel confident that the former polity could be judged as the better governed by any common sense yardsticks? I tried thinking of European countries but maybe US states would do. Washington state versus Mississippi perhaps? Minnesota v. Alabama?....

    Your rejection of IQ tests seems to go so far

    I don’t reject IQ tests — I mean only that I would not hire someone based on his or her IQ score being higher than other candidates. In general — and feel free to disagree — I believe it takes a solid ten IQ points for one to detect any real difference from one person to another. You’ll see a difference in noticeable awareness, problem-solving, vocabulary, analytical ability, etc. from 100-110, again 110-120, again 120-130, and so forth. Just my opinion.

    As far as your “legislators” proposal goes, I think it is entirely outside the scope of reality. The most salient aspect of government is its propensity to corruption, and that tends to exclude any “intelligence” effects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Given all sorts of factors affecting scores on any given test on any given day and likely to affect people differently i think I would agree that it probably takes a reported 8 or 10 difference to give any right to confidence in prediction or judgment. A particle physicist of my long acquaintance who had a school career in which he won prizes for poetry and acing as well as the sciences and maths was recorded as having had his IQ tested at 183 and also at 137. (I saw the records). So don't write me off as a believer (in anything much). But if I had to choose software engineers or just executives from a pool of candidates whose measured IQs clustered round 120 or a pool for whom the figure was 125 I wouldn't have any doubt about choosing from the 125ers if that was all I knew. Would you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @utu
    All that matters is wealth and power. Finally. Good. And now you should be ready to make the next step. You really think that "IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast"? To the contrary. They are very important for the system. They are providing the missing lynchpin for the foundation of the so called meritocracy? As I said earlier a truth is the most powerful rhetorical device. Who possess that wins. But what is the truth? It really does not matter as long people think it is. This is the job for this blog and the IQ-nutters like Murray, Cochran and Sailer to convince people of the truth of IQ determinism and the meme that the ruling caste and elite have higher IQ and thus are the most deserving of their positions. And the issues like that the women or blacks have lower IQ that somehow gets you all worked up are just distractions, consolation prizes, scraps from the masters' table for the masses but chiefly the incentives for the useful idiots to continue the work for free and against their interest in the factory where the consent is manufactured and where from the memes are spread for the benefit of the status quo.

    All that matters is wealth and power. Finally. Good.

    Ayup. You are entirely correct. Or, should I dismiss everything you say, just on general principles? ;-)

    If you keep making inescapable, dismal points like that, no one is going to talk to you. I think you’d better find yourself a conspiracy somewhere, and whomp the hell out of it on this blog, or any blog.

    Sometimes I think I’m living in a parody of Monty Python’s Holy Grail. Yeah, I said it, a parody!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @utu
    Steve Sailer in particular has argued against US immigration policy and practice in the interest of American workers.

    If Steve Sailer solely argued about the interest of American workers or if Breitbart was solely about national Bannonism w/o strong pro Zionist and anti-Iran angle they would be allowed to scribble their messages only on stalls of public toilet.

    So, to repeat, who are the power elites suited by Steve’s memes and why does it suit them? And how far does it help make what he writes into widespread memes (which I doubt they are)?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Mark Presco
    James Thompson tries to make a scientific argument for the under representation of women in certain areas by crunching the only raw data available, IQ. I have to agree with John Jeremiah Smith that this is a bad approach, but I can’t agree with some of his other arguments. Let me use another data set to make the same point.

    The only way women are going to be equally represented in management is do it the same way men did it: create their fair share of the pie. If women had created their fair share of the businesses and jobs then they would be equally represented in management because they would be CEOs of their own companies. The glass ceiling exists because women are totally dependent on men to promote them. If women have not shown an equal ability to create successful businesses, why should men assume they are equally qualified to run them.

    There are many reasons the percentage of female CEOs do not track IQ. One reason is NOT some white male good old boy system. Successful businesses are survivors of ruthless cutthroat competition and are as objective as is possible in this world.

    The only way women are going to be equally represented in management is do it the same way men did it: create their fair share of the pie. If women had created their fair share of the businesses and jobs then they would be equally represented in management because they would be CEOs of their own companies. The glass ceiling exists because women are totally dependent on men to promote them.

    Valid counterpoints, agreed. In defense of my position, permit me to re-state that I refer solely to hiring, to job assignment, to task performance in at-will employment, i.e. as HR Director, who do I hire and why?

    Building a successful company and becoming CEO is not a “Who do I hire and why?” set of conditions; it is entrepeneurial and participatory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Presco

    In defense of my position, permit me to re-state that I refer solely to hiring, to job assignment, to task performance in at-will employment, i.e. as HR Director, who do I hire and why?

     

    I deliberately deleted a paragraph that addressed your position for brevity because I just assumed that it was obvious that the ultimate example applies across the board.

    Climbing the corporate ladder, or for that matter academia, is equally competitive. The list of achievers in the STEM fields are mostly male because white men are the most competitive people on the planet. Women have to place themselves on this list on their own before they will be seen as equals.

    There are lots of other differences in the way men and women approach the work place, not the least of which is that a man is his work. The great men in history that I admire are remembered for their body of work. Do I have to name them for you? I’m astonished that as an HR person you seem totally unaware of this.

    Do you hire for affirmative action and diversity? Does equality to you mean equal outcomes but not equal contributions?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @utu
    All that matters is wealth and power. Finally. Good. And now you should be ready to make the next step. You really think that "IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast"? To the contrary. They are very important for the system. They are providing the missing lynchpin for the foundation of the so called meritocracy? As I said earlier a truth is the most powerful rhetorical device. Who possess that wins. But what is the truth? It really does not matter as long people think it is. This is the job for this blog and the IQ-nutters like Murray, Cochran and Sailer to convince people of the truth of IQ determinism and the meme that the ruling caste and elite have higher IQ and thus are the most deserving of their positions. And the issues like that the women or blacks have lower IQ that somehow gets you all worked up are just distractions, consolation prizes, scraps from the masters' table for the masses but chiefly the incentives for the useful idiots to continue the work for free and against their interest in the factory where the consent is manufactured and where from the memes are spread for the benefit of the status quo.

    I feel I must add “Holy crap! A goddamn revolutionary who better watch what he says.”

    That one is not particularly dangerous, but don’t throw caution to the winds. The FBI really does send very friendly, conversational people out to talk to you. Using phrases like “What do you think should be done about that?” and “So-and-so says such-and-such. Is that something you would agree with?” and “Nice place you have here. You must have worked very hard to achieve all this.” and “Your wife works for the county schools, right?”

    Friendly. Mild-mannered. Scared the bejeezus outame.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @utu
    All that matters is wealth and power. Finally. Good. And now you should be ready to make the next step. You really think that "IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast"? To the contrary. They are very important for the system. They are providing the missing lynchpin for the foundation of the so called meritocracy? As I said earlier a truth is the most powerful rhetorical device. Who possess that wins. But what is the truth? It really does not matter as long people think it is. This is the job for this blog and the IQ-nutters like Murray, Cochran and Sailer to convince people of the truth of IQ determinism and the meme that the ruling caste and elite have higher IQ and thus are the most deserving of their positions. And the issues like that the women or blacks have lower IQ that somehow gets you all worked up are just distractions, consolation prizes, scraps from the masters' table for the masses but chiefly the incentives for the useful idiots to continue the work for free and against their interest in the factory where the consent is manufactured and where from the memes are spread for the benefit of the status quo.

    I feel I must add “Holy crap! A goddamn revolutionary who better watch what he says.”

    That one is not particularly dangerous, but don’t throw caution to the winds. The FBI really does send very friendly, conversational people out to talk to you. Using phrases like “What do you think should be done about that?” and “So-and-so says such-and-such. Is that something you would agree with?” and “Nice place you have here. You must have worked very hard to achieve all this.” and “Your wife works for the county schools, right?”

    Friendly. Mild-mannered. Scared the bejeezus outame.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. 4 points ahead…

    But men no have a U-shape distribution??

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  120. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    The only way women are going to be equally represented in management is do it the same way men did it: create their fair share of the pie. If women had created their fair share of the businesses and jobs then they would be equally represented in management because they would be CEOs of their own companies. The glass ceiling exists because women are totally dependent on men to promote them.
     
    Valid counterpoints, agreed. In defense of my position, permit me to re-state that I refer solely to hiring, to job assignment, to task performance in at-will employment, i.e. as HR Director, who do I hire and why?

    Building a successful company and becoming CEO is not a "Who do I hire and why?" set of conditions; it is entrepeneurial and participatory.

    In defense of my position, permit me to re-state that I refer solely to hiring, to job assignment, to task performance in at-will employment, i.e. as HR Director, who do I hire and why?

    I deliberately deleted a paragraph that addressed your position for brevity because I just assumed that it was obvious that the ultimate example applies across the board.

    Climbing the corporate ladder, or for that matter academia, is equally competitive. The list of achievers in the STEM fields are mostly male because white men are the most competitive people on the planet. Women have to place themselves on this list on their own before they will be seen as equals.

    There are lots of other differences in the way men and women approach the work place, not the least of which is that a man is his work. The great men in history that I admire are remembered for their body of work. Do I have to name them for you? I’m astonished that as an HR person you seem totally unaware of this.

    Do you hire for affirmative action and diversity? Does equality to you mean equal outcomes but not equal contributions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Do you hire for affirmative action and diversity? Does equality to you mean equal outcomes but not equal contributions?
     
    You've gone too far afield. Sorry, no interest.

    Reminder: Is a score on an IQ test the proper measure of an individual's desirability as an employee? Answer: No. Only demonstrated merit, experience and ability are proper measures of suitability to employment, or, in the case of inexperienced new hires, aptitude and attitude.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. phil says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    phil, you're not paying attention. Is it a surprise that intelligent people tend to have more income? Really, think about it: Is it a shock? Not at all ... but ... 10% variance over a lifetime? Hmm... seems a requirement it is not.

    All of which is neither here nor there. You IQ freaks may plot to your hearts' content, and it will never amount to a hill of beans. Oh, my my my, women are inferior, yep, by 0.17 IQ points. How can we EVER allow them dumb broads to hold public office, or even work in a bank? Or, hell, be employed at all? They should stay at home, fuck the lord of the castle, clean house and watch the kids.

    Negros? Messicans? God forbid. They are so dumb they can hardly walk north. Chinks? Well, sometimes smart, but never creative, right? No Chinee ever invented a damn thing, right?

    I know what you are, phil. Seen people like you, read people like you, avoided people like you for most of my life. All of your "research", all of your "testing", all of your preconceptions have achieved what, exactly? Zippo. Zilch. Nada. Messicans have invaded the country. Negros have jobs in government. Women hold executive positions, dumb as rocks though they be.

    It matters not in the slightest whether your IQ obsession is true. What matters is that you IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast. Nobody gives a shit who's smart and who's not. All that matters is wealth and power.

    In the recent survey of IQ researchers, it so happens that Steve Sailer , along with Anatoly Karlin, was singled out by a preponderence of respondents as having accurately reported on IQ research. On the other hand, the New York Times, the Economist, National Public Radio, etc. were widely criticized as ignoring or misrepresenting the research, even when it has, in many cases, been subject to replication.

    There is no single factor that accounts for a majority of the variance in people’s labor market earnings, but of the factors that matter, IQ is first or second in importance (conscientiousness/work ethic also being very important). Nobel Laureate James Heckman wrote a critical review of The Bell Curve after it was published, but later lauded the book for breaking the taboo about including IQ in discussions of earnings. Hechman’s own regressions lead him to conclude that improving the cognitive ability of A

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Baloney. IQ and $2 buys a cup of coffee. The rest is all about who's your daddy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. phil says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    phil, you're not paying attention. Is it a surprise that intelligent people tend to have more income? Really, think about it: Is it a shock? Not at all ... but ... 10% variance over a lifetime? Hmm... seems a requirement it is not.

    All of which is neither here nor there. You IQ freaks may plot to your hearts' content, and it will never amount to a hill of beans. Oh, my my my, women are inferior, yep, by 0.17 IQ points. How can we EVER allow them dumb broads to hold public office, or even work in a bank? Or, hell, be employed at all? They should stay at home, fuck the lord of the castle, clean house and watch the kids.

    Negros? Messicans? God forbid. They are so dumb they can hardly walk north. Chinks? Well, sometimes smart, but never creative, right? No Chinee ever invented a damn thing, right?

    I know what you are, phil. Seen people like you, read people like you, avoided people like you for most of my life. All of your "research", all of your "testing", all of your preconceptions have achieved what, exactly? Zippo. Zilch. Nada. Messicans have invaded the country. Negros have jobs in government. Women hold executive positions, dumb as rocks though they be.

    It matters not in the slightest whether your IQ obsession is true. What matters is that you IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast. Nobody gives a shit who's smart and who's not. All that matters is wealth and power.

    No single factor accounts for a majority of the variance in people’s labor market earnings. Of the factors that do matter, IQ and conscientiousness/work ethic are especially important. Nobel Laureate James Heckman wrote a critical review of The Bell Curve after it was published, but later lauded the book for breaking the taboo about discussing the role of IQ in people’s lives. His own regressions led him to argue that the single most important policy reform available for improving the lives of African-Americans lies in pre-school education to enhance their cognitive skills and conscientiousness. I happen to doubt the efficacy of his policy proposals, but I am glad that he joined the discussion in a constructive way instead of simply being a naysayer.

    Your comment seems less a constructive engagement about the relevance of IQ and more a lament about the direction in which the political and social world has gone. I was disappointed by your resort to a personal attack and profanity.

    I am grateful for this article by Dr. Thompson and the new issue of Mankind Quarterly. Other publications won’t touch the matter of sex differences in IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Mark Presco

    In defense of my position, permit me to re-state that I refer solely to hiring, to job assignment, to task performance in at-will employment, i.e. as HR Director, who do I hire and why?

     

    I deliberately deleted a paragraph that addressed your position for brevity because I just assumed that it was obvious that the ultimate example applies across the board.

    Climbing the corporate ladder, or for that matter academia, is equally competitive. The list of achievers in the STEM fields are mostly male because white men are the most competitive people on the planet. Women have to place themselves on this list on their own before they will be seen as equals.

    There are lots of other differences in the way men and women approach the work place, not the least of which is that a man is his work. The great men in history that I admire are remembered for their body of work. Do I have to name them for you? I’m astonished that as an HR person you seem totally unaware of this.

    Do you hire for affirmative action and diversity? Does equality to you mean equal outcomes but not equal contributions?

    Do you hire for affirmative action and diversity? Does equality to you mean equal outcomes but not equal contributions?

    You’ve gone too far afield. Sorry, no interest.

    Reminder: Is a score on an IQ test the proper measure of an individual’s desirability as an employee? Answer: No. Only demonstrated merit, experience and ability are proper measures of suitability to employment, or, in the case of inexperienced new hires, aptitude and attitude.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @phil
    In the recent survey of IQ researchers, it so happens that Steve Sailer , along with Anatoly Karlin, was singled out by a preponderence of respondents as having accurately reported on IQ research. On the other hand, the New York Times, the Economist, National Public Radio, etc. were widely criticized as ignoring or misrepresenting the research, even when it has, in many cases, been subject to replication.

    There is no single factor that accounts for a majority of the variance in people's labor market earnings, but of the factors that matter, IQ is first or second in importance (conscientiousness/work ethic also being very important). Nobel Laureate James Heckman wrote a critical review of The Bell Curve after it was published, but later lauded the book for breaking the taboo about including IQ in discussions of earnings. Hechman's own regressions lead him to conclude that improving the cognitive ability of A

    Baloney. IQ and $2 buys a cup of coffee. The rest is all about who’s your daddy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Your rejection of IQ tests seems to go so far
     
    I don't reject IQ tests -- I mean only that I would not hire someone based on his or her IQ score being higher than other candidates. In general -- and feel free to disagree -- I believe it takes a solid ten IQ points for one to detect any real difference from one person to another. You'll see a difference in noticeable awareness, problem-solving, vocabulary, analytical ability, etc. from 100-110, again 110-120, again 120-130, and so forth. Just my opinion.

    As far as your "legislators" proposal goes, I think it is entirely outside the scope of reality. The most salient aspect of government is its propensity to corruption, and that tends to exclude any "intelligence" effects.

    Given all sorts of factors affecting scores on any given test on any given day and likely to affect people differently i think I would agree that it probably takes a reported 8 or 10 difference to give any right to confidence in prediction or judgment. A particle physicist of my long acquaintance who had a school career in which he won prizes for poetry and acing as well as the sciences and maths was recorded as having had his IQ tested at 183 and also at 137. (I saw the records). So don’t write me off as a believer (in anything much). But if I had to choose software engineers or just executives from a pool of candidates whose measured IQs clustered round 120 or a pool for whom the figure was 125 I wouldn’t have any doubt about choosing from the 125ers if that was all I knew. Would you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    But if I had to choose software engineers or just executives from a pool of candidates whose measured IQs clustered round 120 or a pool for whom the figure was 125 I wouldn’t have any doubt about choosing from the 125ers if that was all I knew. Would you?
     
    Er, not to dodge the question, but no. If all I knew about a pool of candidates was their IQ scores, I wouldn't hire any of them.

    More like "Oh, hell, no."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    phil, you're not paying attention. Is it a surprise that intelligent people tend to have more income? Really, think about it: Is it a shock? Not at all ... but ... 10% variance over a lifetime? Hmm... seems a requirement it is not.

    All of which is neither here nor there. You IQ freaks may plot to your hearts' content, and it will never amount to a hill of beans. Oh, my my my, women are inferior, yep, by 0.17 IQ points. How can we EVER allow them dumb broads to hold public office, or even work in a bank? Or, hell, be employed at all? They should stay at home, fuck the lord of the castle, clean house and watch the kids.

    Negros? Messicans? God forbid. They are so dumb they can hardly walk north. Chinks? Well, sometimes smart, but never creative, right? No Chinee ever invented a damn thing, right?

    I know what you are, phil. Seen people like you, read people like you, avoided people like you for most of my life. All of your "research", all of your "testing", all of your preconceptions have achieved what, exactly? Zippo. Zilch. Nada. Messicans have invaded the country. Negros have jobs in government. Women hold executive positions, dumb as rocks though they be.

    It matters not in the slightest whether your IQ obsession is true. What matters is that you IQ-nutters are losing ground, fast. Nobody gives a shit who's smart and who's not. All that matters is wealth and power.

    Oh, my my my, women are inferior, yep, by 0.17 IQ points. How can we EVER allow them dumb broads to hold public office, or even work in a bank? Or, hell, be employed at all? They should stay at home, fuck the lord of the castle, clean house and watch the kids.

    Do you realize that you are creating imaginary opponents with imaginary views? Do you even understand the difference between “average” and “every one”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I have the impression that MOST men tend to be better on spatial tasks than MOST women regardless if they/we tend to have a U-shape distribution of general intelligence while MOST women tend to be better than men in other issues probably related with verbal and emotional skills even this efficiency tend not to be so impactant as those which are related with spatial skills probably because what i said above, if women really were, on avg, considerably smarter than men in this mentalistic/''empathizing'' issues they will be capable to understand men's behaviors too.

    What i mean, even men with general lower cognitive skills still will be better on avg on spatial tasks than women with comparably higher general cognitive skills. The example of mechanic worker/man [underlying that he is better on spatial/''systemizing'' tasks] who score around ~90's on general IQ/cognitive skills and a academic woman who score ~110 but understand nothing about cars functioning.

    I wonder if east asians and blacks, on avg, tend to have comparably lower sexual dimorphism on cognitive skills than european caucasians. Seems at least in psychological trends black women appear to be more ''masculine'' than european caucasian women. About east asians i really don't know but the impression is that they tend to be less sexually dimorphic than european caucasians, they already are on their physical characteristics.

    Would be interesting too analyse if there is some differentiated correlation between spatial/verbal skills-tilts and... for example, religious affiliation.

    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Do you realize that you are creating imaginary opponents with imaginary views? Do you even understand the difference between “average” and “every one”?
     
    LOL. Why, yes, I do.

    Do you even understand that a 0.07 IQ-point difference is so meaningless as to be absurd as a criterion for anything, anything at all?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Wizard of Oz
    Following up the thoughts I have had and expressed about the unmeasured interface factor in assessing the performance advantages afforded by a very high IQ I think this is a related idea that I am willing to back with money.

    Consistently with programming computers successfully to play Chess or Go it would clearly be possible to program them to do the full battery of IQ tests. But it's not that simple procedure that I propose. What is needed is a hardware + software that attempts to model the human brain's processes and then is turned loose on the battery of IQ tests.

    Even with Model 1.1.1 it will be possible to start tweaking a little here and a little thete to see what effect the changes make on tests of varying g weighting.

    Maybe it shouĺd be started with an all software model and no non standard neural-systems simulating parts as a Proof of Concept.

    I could find money for such a project. Give me an address for yourself or get Ron to put you in touch with me.

    Does it have any theoretical fatal flaw or might it be useful?

    Thanks. I think that this field is very well covered by Hassabis.
    His teams are way, way ahead on these sorts of issues. I would see what they are up to first, because unless one recruits the best players one could waste time.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/artificial-general-intelligence-von

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks for reply including the link. I am
    interested to see you refer to Hassabis's leading edge work as mimicking neural networks which of course I had no way of verifying for myself and maybe don't really understand. It occurred to me to wonder if the great leap - ? divine move - may be to find ways of learning and problem solving which are quite different from those of the human brain and which could not be used by the human brain except even perhaps by writing down in some form everything the AI machine does. But maybe you are not using "neural network" to mean the same sort of neural network as humans have.
    , @res
    Thanks for bringing this up again. Motivated me to finally watch his talk. One thing which really struck me was the rate (and consistency) of improvement (~1 rank per month) mentioned at 56:00.

    I had not been paying close attention since the Lee Sedol victory so went back to check if the rank improvement rate continued and AFAICT it did. Topping out at 1,000 Elo points above where it was at the time of the talk-on a single machine no less! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo#Versions

    His three schools of Go forcing them out of local maxima comment a minute or so later was very interesting. I wonder if he still feels that way now. I guess the comment could be viewed as "relatively."

    Some interesting thoughts on intuition and creativity starting around 58:15
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You may find some interest in this ABC Health Report interview if only as indicating the likelihood that environment in a broad enough sense to include ude of technology and methods of teaching may affect the hardware or maybe firmware of our neural networks. Is that an extravagant interpretation? And I wonder how it relates to the Flynn Effect.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/childhood-literacy/9031078#transcript

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @John Jeremiah Smith

    I hope you are right but then why do you seem to get triggered by it?
     
    Ah, it's just crankiness, basically. As mentioned above, I spent a year working with a researcher at NIH. Now, the research target was actually one for clinical psychology, specifically paranoid behavior, paranoid delusion. I never read the paper published, having moved on by then. However, I observed, mmm, maybe 30 WAIS interviews? Enough to convince me that IQ, as measured, and if regarded as some reflection of true intelligence, has relatively little impact on the ability of the individual to function in society -- particularly in terms of productive, cooperative, interactive function.

    Capiche? Thus my ready dismissal of IQ-centered ninny-ism. Sure, for a given job, but damn few, some level of higher intelligence may contribute to effectiveness. But, for 99% of jobs in America that non-Jews or non-Asians are allowed to hold? No way.

    I do not know if you will find it relevant, but a lot of work on this issue has been done by Schmidt. I have mentioned him several times in the blog, but here is a relevant one.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/jobs-iq-tests-versus-interviews

    There is also good work by Paul Sackett.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-college-admission-tests-predict

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/can-tests-predict-academic-outcomes

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    I don't know if you have read the previous exchange (on "growing intelligence").

    RaceRealist88 mentioned previously Ken Richardson et Norgate ("Does IQ really predicts Job performance?) critique, including their strong criticism of Hunter and Schmidt meta-analysis which you have quoted (but not only theirs). I feel Richardson raised many excellent points, even though I had a vague feeling the authors are biased while reading his paper; nevertheless I think they undermined my strong belief in iq-job performance link. I would love to see the other researchers to respond to their paper.

    See also RR88's blog entry here: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/04/doctors-iq-and-job-performance/

    There are two more meta-analyses of iq-predicts-prformance: for Germany in Lang et al 2010 (“General mental ability…”), which avoids part but not all of Richardson criticism (for example, in addition to supervisor ratings they also take into account written and oral exams etc) and for Europe in Salgado et al 2003 ( "A Meta-Analytic Study of General Mental Ability Validity for Different Occupations in the European Community."). All three find the link between job complexity and the predictive value of iq.

    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    I do not know if you will find it relevant, but a lot of work on this issue has been done by Schmidt.
     
    I've hired dozens of people. IQ was never a consideration for the great majority -- invariably it was experience, demonstrated ability and interview assessment that made the real difference.

    I will mention that IQ, if available, was a basis for immediate rejection as either too low or too high. Depending upon the requirements of a given job, low intelligence scores tended be slow learners, and we sure didn't need any of those. High-IQ people are more likely to be troublemakers -- if you saw an SB score over 150 applying for certain positions, that score might contribute to ruling-out that individual. A really good interview and work history might make a difference there, but any high-IQ individual with a spotty work history is typically trouble on two legs; worse if it's female.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. szopen says:
    @James Thompson
    I do not know if you will find it relevant, but a lot of work on this issue has been done by Schmidt. I have mentioned him several times in the blog, but here is a relevant one.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/jobs-iq-tests-versus-interviews

    There is also good work by Paul Sackett.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-college-admission-tests-predict
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/can-tests-predict-academic-outcomes

    I don’t know if you have read the previous exchange (on “growing intelligence”).

    RaceRealist88 mentioned previously Ken Richardson et Norgate (“Does IQ really predicts Job performance?) critique, including their strong criticism of Hunter and Schmidt meta-analysis which you have quoted (but not only theirs). I feel Richardson raised many excellent points, even though I had a vague feeling the authors are biased while reading his paper; nevertheless I think they undermined my strong belief in iq-job performance link. I would love to see the other researchers to respond to their paper.

    See also RR88′s blog entry here: https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/04/doctors-iq-and-job-performance/

    There are two more meta-analyses of iq-predicts-prformance: for Germany in Lang et al 2010 (“General mental ability…”), which avoids part but not all of Richardson criticism (for example, in addition to supervisor ratings they also take into account written and oral exams etc) and for Europe in Salgado et al 2003 ( “A Meta-Analytic Study of General Mental Ability Validity for Different Occupations in the European Community.”). All three find the link between job complexity and the predictive value of iq.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @dearieme
    To continue: could it be that the desire for cheap paper-and-pencil tests has inadvertently biased the tests against women? That sounds just about plausible to me. Paper-and-pencil probably suits thing-oriented people (men and boys) rather than people-oriented people (women and girls).

    Thanks. There are many tests which would allow men and women to exhibit particular skills. Given time and resources we could look at dress, deportment, identification of cars, supermarket navigation, joke-telling, general knowledge quizzes and working out the best way to organize events. Many of those have been studied. Tests, however, have to be shorter and cheaper than observing real life. Hence the virtues of something simple like digit span, digit symbol coding, simple maths, or a short vocabulary test, simply because they have predictive power. You need something which has a good prediction/time-taken ratio.
    If noting what people are wearing predicts achievement in life, then by all means study it. I think that getting people to name plants would be better, and easier to do.
    Here is one test on which women may do better.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/look-in-my-eyes-you-sensitive-clever

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    A woman I know well whose IQ was twice measured in childhood at about 175 (I don't know which tests so it could have been Cattell) is vastly observant of plants, clothes, interior design, jewellery, birds and would beat almost any man by a country mile on all of them as well as being the person engaged as an informative and amusing no notes speaker. But part of her advantage must be that she has the words/names to help organise the material and memories of it. Compare someone who doesn't just see polygons but triangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons etc. and their mathematical attributes. Won't that overpower anything but a vast difference in fluid intelligence on many tests?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Wizard of Oz
    Allow me JT to extend the thought into a question I meant to ask when you mentioned standsardised tssts and I then found more references I think in the Flynn comments on Lynn.

    If the tests have been standardised to ensure males and females have the same average scores how come men in large samples are scoring higher than women? I can see the logical possibility of it occurring amongst test subjects whose scores are well above (or I suppose below) average but I struggle to make sense of it.

    The argument is that men are a little bit brighter overall, and brighter on spatial tasks, and that, despite test standardization trying to blot out this difference, it still comes out in testing and in real life. However, as always, we have to check all the data to make sure that the claimed male advantage is really true, and look carefully at the sample representativeness and the broad range of tests used.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    It makes the PC standardising psychometricians sound a bit like the Treasury and Inland Revenue Mr. or Dr. Plods whose politically ordained task is to draft tax laws which the smart guys can't work around. Clearly they have failed if the competitive male still finds a way to do better than the female on tests desigñed to accommodate her. They shouldn't be paid for their product and I would like to see them front up to that mini Royal Commission, the Public Accounts Committee, and justify their work and the contracts whereby they get paid for ìt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Wizard of Oz
    Allow my tiny Aspergerish component to mention #102

    Allowed, and answered, as I slowly work through the comments. By the way, I don’t think that attention to detail on your part is a disorder.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @James Thompson
    The argument is that men are a little bit brighter overall, and brighter on spatial tasks, and that, despite test standardization trying to blot out this difference, it still comes out in testing and in real life. However, as always, we have to check all the data to make sure that the claimed male advantage is really true, and look carefully at the sample representativeness and the broad range of tests used.

    It makes the PC standardising psychometricians sound a bit like the Treasury and Inland Revenue Mr. or Dr. Plods whose politically ordained task is to draft tax laws which the smart guys can’t work around. Clearly they have failed if the competitive male still finds a way to do better than the female on tests desigñed to accommodate her. They shouldn’t be paid for their product and I would like to see them front up to that mini Royal Commission, the Public Accounts Committee, and justify their work and the contracts whereby they get paid for ìt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @James Thompson
    Thanks. There are many tests which would allow men and women to exhibit particular skills. Given time and resources we could look at dress, deportment, identification of cars, supermarket navigation, joke-telling, general knowledge quizzes and working out the best way to organize events. Many of those have been studied. Tests, however, have to be shorter and cheaper than observing real life. Hence the virtues of something simple like digit span, digit symbol coding, simple maths, or a short vocabulary test, simply because they have predictive power. You need something which has a good prediction/time-taken ratio.
    If noting what people are wearing predicts achievement in life, then by all means study it. I think that getting people to name plants would be better, and easier to do.
    Here is one test on which women may do better.
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/look-in-my-eyes-you-sensitive-clever

    A woman I know well whose IQ was twice measured in childhood at about 175 (I don’t know which tests so it could have been Cattell) is vastly observant of plants, clothes, interior design, jewellery, birds and would beat almost any man by a country mile on all of them as well as being the person engaged as an informative and amusing no notes speaker. But part of her advantage must be that she has the words/names to help organise the material and memories of it. Compare someone who doesn’t just see polygons but triangles, squares, pentagons, hexagons etc. and their mathematical attributes. Won’t that overpower anything but a vast difference in fluid intelligence on many tests?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @szopen

    Oh, my my my, women are inferior, yep, by 0.17 IQ points. How can we EVER allow them dumb broads to hold public office, or even work in a bank? Or, hell, be employed at all? They should stay at home, fuck the lord of the castle, clean house and watch the kids.
     
    Do you realize that you are creating imaginary opponents with imaginary views? Do you even understand the difference between "average" and "every one"?

    I have the impression that MOST men tend to be better on spatial tasks than MOST women regardless if they/we tend to have a U-shape distribution of general intelligence while MOST women tend to be better than men in other issues probably related with verbal and emotional skills even this efficiency tend not to be so impactant as those which are related with spatial skills probably because what i said above, if women really were, on avg, considerably smarter than men in this mentalistic/”empathizing” issues they will be capable to understand men’s behaviors too.

    What i mean, even men with general lower cognitive skills still will be better on avg on spatial tasks than women with comparably higher general cognitive skills. The example of mechanic worker/man [underlying that he is better on spatial/''systemizing'' tasks] who score around ~90′s on general IQ/cognitive skills and a academic woman who score ~110 but understand nothing about cars functioning.

    I wonder if east asians and blacks, on avg, tend to have comparably lower sexual dimorphism on cognitive skills than european caucasians. Seems at least in psychological trends black women appear to be more ”masculine” than european caucasian women. About east asians i really don’t know but the impression is that they tend to be less sexually dimorphic than european caucasians, they already are on their physical characteristics.

    Would be interesting too analyse if there is some differentiated correlation between spatial/verbal skills-tilts and… for example, religious affiliation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    The standard feminist response is "but women after a week of training can play tetris as well as men!" or, more sophisticated "yeah, even though after training of both men and women both improve so the gaps persists, but the learning curve is similar for men and women playing first-person shooter video games, so it's all cultural".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. szopen says:
    @Santoculto
    I have the impression that MOST men tend to be better on spatial tasks than MOST women regardless if they/we tend to have a U-shape distribution of general intelligence while MOST women tend to be better than men in other issues probably related with verbal and emotional skills even this efficiency tend not to be so impactant as those which are related with spatial skills probably because what i said above, if women really were, on avg, considerably smarter than men in this mentalistic/''empathizing'' issues they will be capable to understand men's behaviors too.

    What i mean, even men with general lower cognitive skills still will be better on avg on spatial tasks than women with comparably higher general cognitive skills. The example of mechanic worker/man [underlying that he is better on spatial/''systemizing'' tasks] who score around ~90's on general IQ/cognitive skills and a academic woman who score ~110 but understand nothing about cars functioning.

    I wonder if east asians and blacks, on avg, tend to have comparably lower sexual dimorphism on cognitive skills than european caucasians. Seems at least in psychological trends black women appear to be more ''masculine'' than european caucasian women. About east asians i really don't know but the impression is that they tend to be less sexually dimorphic than european caucasians, they already are on their physical characteristics.

    Would be interesting too analyse if there is some differentiated correlation between spatial/verbal skills-tilts and... for example, religious affiliation.

    The standard feminist response is “but women after a week of training can play tetris as well as men!” or, more sophisticated “yeah, even though after training of both men and women both improve so the gaps persists, but the learning curve is similar for men and women playing first-person shooter video games, so it’s all cultural”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Little improvements on short term everyone can do but we are talking about at long term if not at vitalicious term.

    Cognitive/psycho prefferences is just like sexual prefferences, it's hard to change but it can be individually variable [and limited of course].

    It's also cultural, we are bio-cultural products, but not that ''culture make it...'', ''we make culture, our own culture, firstly, and often individual cultures tend to fit with collective cultures, namely in long-time culturally stable places''.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. btw is it true that any adjustments made to eg the WAIS in order to eliminate gender differences only favored females? That seems to be the assumption made by some researchers like Lynn or Jackson but I have seen diverging opinions. See for example these comments by Lichtenberger and Kaufman:

    The VCI difference on the WAIS-III favoring males is larger than the corresponding difference on the WAIS-IV, but is of no consequence because it is contrary to the bulk of literature on the topic:

    One set of findings that has been replicated many times is that females, on average, score higher on some tests of verbal abilities, especially those that require rapid access to and use of phonological and semantic information in long-term memory. (Halpern, Beninger, & Straight, 2011, p. 254)
    The verbal abilities that females excel at resemble the abilities needed to perform well on Wechsler’s VCI subtests.

    Furthermore, the results of gender differences on verbal subtests included in major intelligence tests are contaminated because test developers have consistently tried to avoid gender bias during the test development phase, both in the selection of subtests for the batteries and in the choice of items for each subtest. Matarazzo(1972) pointed out:

    From the very beginning developers of the best known individual intelligence scales (Binet, Terman, and Wechsler) took great care to counterbalance or eliminate from their final scale any items or subtests which empirically were found to result in a higher score for one sex over the other. (p. 352; italics in original)
    According to Wechsler (1958): “The principal reason for adopting such a procedure is that it avoids the necessity of separate norms for men and women” (p. 144). The counterbalancing or eliminating of gender-biased items primarily affects verbal subtests such as Information or Comprehension (and the WMI subtest Arithmetic), where the content of the item might favor one gender over the other. In contrast, subtests like Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Symbol Search, and Coding are composed of “content-free” items that are not likely to be biased in any way. Therefore, interpreting gender differences on the PSI and PRI is reasonable from a scientific perspective.

    https://books.google.at/books?id=SUqcospVEMcC&lpg=PP1&dq=alan%20kaufman%20wais&hl=de&pg=PT234#v=onepage&q&f=true

    Read More
    • Replies: @Passer by
    Verbal differences in the various sub tests measuring verbal ability are small - no more than 2-3 iq points in favor of any sex. On average, adult males and females have equal verbal ability. (Based on meta analysis from Hyde that Lynn mentioned, plus based on my experience, i saw hundreds of IQ studies and men were equal or slightly better on the verbal component).

    Now, for the WAIS - it is possible that there are some verbal sub-tests that could favor males over females, i do not know. But that difference will be dwarfed by the difference caused by the lack of mental rotation subtest, where there is massive 1 SD dif. in favor of men.

    In other words, lets say you added one verbal test that gave advantage to men of 3 IQ points and you removed a mental rotation subtest where the dif was 15 iq points in favor of men. Obviously this will cause a major bias in favor of females even though a verbal sub test favored males, simply because the difference in mental rotation is very large, so you can not easily compensate that no matter what you do with the verbal subtests, because the differences there are small.

    What i say is that whatever games you play with the verbal subtests you won't gain large advantage for either sex, but if you remove mental rotation will get a large advantage for females.

    The WAIS verbal data is roughly consistent with what i saw in many other IQ studies, which is - a slight verbal advantage in favor of males.

    There are many IQ tests. I do not know how they form their verbal components/sub tests. But i could tell you that the vast majority of IQ tests (WAIS, WJ 3, AFQT/ASVAB, Wonderlick, etc.) do not have mental rotation sub tests (where you will find the biggest gender difference in cognitive abilities, dwarfing any other difference) and that can not be a coincidence. The fact that most tests do not have a mental rotation sub-test makes things clear to me - it is deliberate and the bias is mostly in favor of females.

    Btw i also recently found this -

    "According to Mellone (1944-1945), boys were so superior to girls on block counting tasks,
    that this test was eliminated from the Scottish mental survey (1933) as a measure of general
    intelligence."

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/amg-acta-geneticae-medicae-et-gemellologiae-twin-research/article/human-intelligence-sex-differences/2F028E657F4920C0DCAFC233C81D0C52

    And scottish mental survey data was used in lots of modern studies that claimed no sex difference in intelligence.

    Btw i was talking to Lynn about some of those issues and i gave him some data that he did not publish yet. So i could tell you that there are at least 60 other studies that confirm his theory. I could give you some data if you want.

    , @Passer by
    Oh, one more thing that i found

    “When standardized IQ tests were first developed in the early 20th century, girls typically scored higher than boys until age 14, at which time the curve for girls dropped below that for boys. As testing methodology was revised, efforts were made to equalize gender performance.”

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Sex_differences_in_intelligence
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @James Thompson
    Thanks. I think that this field is very well covered by Hassabis.
    His teams are way, way ahead on these sorts of issues. I would see what they are up to first, because unless one recruits the best players one could waste time.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/artificial-general-intelligence-von

    Thanks for reply including the link. I am
    interested to see you refer to Hassabis’s leading edge work as mimicking neural networks which of course I had no way of verifying for myself and maybe don’t really understand. It occurred to me to wonder if the great leap – ? divine move – may be to find ways of learning and problem solving which are quite different from those of the human brain and which could not be used by the human brain except even perhaps by writing down in some form everything the AI machine does. But maybe you are not using “neural network” to mean the same sort of neural network as humans have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Wizard of Oz
    Given all sorts of factors affecting scores on any given test on any given day and likely to affect people differently i think I would agree that it probably takes a reported 8 or 10 difference to give any right to confidence in prediction or judgment. A particle physicist of my long acquaintance who had a school career in which he won prizes for poetry and acing as well as the sciences and maths was recorded as having had his IQ tested at 183 and also at 137. (I saw the records). So don't write me off as a believer (in anything much). But if I had to choose software engineers or just executives from a pool of candidates whose measured IQs clustered round 120 or a pool for whom the figure was 125 I wouldn't have any doubt about choosing from the 125ers if that was all I knew. Would you?

    But if I had to choose software engineers or just executives from a pool of candidates whose measured IQs clustered round 120 or a pool for whom the figure was 125 I wouldn’t have any doubt about choosing from the 125ers if that was all I knew. Would you?

    Er, not to dodge the question, but no. If all I knew about a pool of candidates was their IQ scores, I wouldn’t hire any of them.

    More like “Oh, hell, no.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Nice dodging thanks to my leaving it open by not insisting you had to choose someone quick smart.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @szopen

    Oh, my my my, women are inferior, yep, by 0.17 IQ points. How can we EVER allow them dumb broads to hold public office, or even work in a bank? Or, hell, be employed at all? They should stay at home, fuck the lord of the castle, clean house and watch the kids.
     
    Do you realize that you are creating imaginary opponents with imaginary views? Do you even understand the difference between "average" and "every one"?

    Do you realize that you are creating imaginary opponents with imaginary views? Do you even understand the difference between “average” and “every one”?

    LOL. Why, yes, I do.

    Do you even understand that a 0.07 IQ-point difference is so meaningless as to be absurd as a criterion for anything, anything at all?

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    The difference is 4 IQ points, and I already have written above what are the consequences. Contrary to your claim, they would not be meaningless if academic jobs would be awarded on IQ alone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @John Jeremiah Smith

    But if I had to choose software engineers or just executives from a pool of candidates whose measured IQs clustered round 120 or a pool for whom the figure was 125 I wouldn’t have any doubt about choosing from the 125ers if that was all I knew. Would you?
     
    Er, not to dodge the question, but no. If all I knew about a pool of candidates was their IQ scores, I wouldn't hire any of them.

    More like "Oh, hell, no."

    Nice dodging thanks to my leaving it open by not insisting you had to choose someone quick smart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Nice dodging thanks to my leaving it open by not insisting you had to choose someone quick smart.
     
    Hey, Wiz, excuse me for been there, done that, know better now. Hire quick on a single-factor basis, regret at leisure.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Nice dodging thanks to my leaving it open by not insisting you had to choose someone quick smart.
     
    Oh, I forgot. Sorry about the dodge.

    Faced with an absolute necessity to hire someone within 2 hours, you pick the best-looking female having the biggest tits. After all, within the next 30 days you're going to have to recruit, evaluate, and hire someone who can actually do the job.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @szopen
    The standard feminist response is "but women after a week of training can play tetris as well as men!" or, more sophisticated "yeah, even though after training of both men and women both improve so the gaps persists, but the learning curve is similar for men and women playing first-person shooter video games, so it's all cultural".

    Little improvements on short term everyone can do but we are talking about at long term if not at vitalicious term.

    Cognitive/psycho prefferences is just like sexual prefferences, it’s hard to change but it can be individually variable [and limited of course].

    It’s also cultural, we are bio-cultural products, but not that ”culture make it…”, ”we make culture, our own culture, firstly, and often individual cultures tend to fit with collective cultures, namely in long-time culturally stable places”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @James Thompson
    I do not know if you will find it relevant, but a lot of work on this issue has been done by Schmidt. I have mentioned him several times in the blog, but here is a relevant one.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/jobs-iq-tests-versus-interviews

    There is also good work by Paul Sackett.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/what-do-college-admission-tests-predict
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/can-tests-predict-academic-outcomes

    I do not know if you will find it relevant, but a lot of work on this issue has been done by Schmidt.

    I’ve hired dozens of people. IQ was never a consideration for the great majority — invariably it was experience, demonstrated ability and interview assessment that made the real difference.

    I will mention that IQ, if available, was a basis for immediate rejection as either too low or too high. Depending upon the requirements of a given job, low intelligence scores tended be slow learners, and we sure didn’t need any of those. High-IQ people are more likely to be troublemakers — if you saw an SB score over 150 applying for certain positions, that score might contribute to ruling-out that individual. A really good interview and work history might make a difference there, but any high-IQ individual with a spotty work history is typically trouble on two legs; worse if it’s female.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Apart from secretaries and bookkeepers nearly all my experience was of hiring directors of research or appointing professors and you remind me of needing to sack one who had topped the state at school, lectured university maths and got a first class degree in law! Unusual but not unique.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Wizard of Oz
    Nice dodging thanks to my leaving it open by not insisting you had to choose someone quick smart.

    Nice dodging thanks to my leaving it open by not insisting you had to choose someone quick smart.

    Hey, Wiz, excuse me for been there, done that, know better now. Hire quick on a single-factor basis, regret at leisure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Do you realize that you are creating imaginary opponents with imaginary views? Do you even understand the difference between “average” and “every one”?
     
    LOL. Why, yes, I do.

    Do you even understand that a 0.07 IQ-point difference is so meaningless as to be absurd as a criterion for anything, anything at all?

    The difference is 4 IQ points, and I already have written above what are the consequences. Contrary to your claim, they would not be meaningless if academic jobs would be awarded on IQ alone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    See Comment #57 by J.Thompson in re 0.07 point difference.

    So, you think "academic" jobs could be awarded on a basis of IQ alone? I can only assume that a plumber with an IQ of 160 would have preference over a physicist with IQ of 159, for a position as lecturer on nuclear physics?

    By golly, sounds like a hell of a plan! Let's get started!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @szopen
    The difference is 4 IQ points, and I already have written above what are the consequences. Contrary to your claim, they would not be meaningless if academic jobs would be awarded on IQ alone.

    See Comment #57 by J.Thompson in re 0.07 point difference.

    So, you think “academic” jobs could be awarded on a basis of IQ alone? I can only assume that a plumber with an IQ of 160 would have preference over a physicist with IQ of 159, for a position as lecturer on nuclear physics?

    By golly, sounds like a hell of a plan! Let’s get started!

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Read again. I wrote "IF academic jobs would be" not SHOULD. Can't you read?

    Re .07: the study reported here by dr Thompson, under which you are commenting, reports 4IQ; _one_ of the references reports no difference in general ability; instead of commenting on the finding of 4 IQ points, you are attacking one of the studies used

    There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points - if it's larger, the communication is supposedly impossible. It's interesting that you're finding 150IQ people to be troublesome.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Wizard of Oz
    Nice dodging thanks to my leaving it open by not insisting you had to choose someone quick smart.

    Nice dodging thanks to my leaving it open by not insisting you had to choose someone quick smart.

    Oh, I forgot. Sorry about the dodge.

    Faced with an absolute necessity to hire someone within 2 hours, you pick the best-looking female having the biggest tits. After all, within the next 30 days you’re going to have to recruit, evaluate, and hire someone who can actually do the job.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I trust you have the right technique to harass the female into leaving without bringing a costly suit against your company. (I'm sure you look better than Harvey Weinstein naked and wouldn't be inviting her to share a shower. Maybe you can have her explaining/boasting to her girlfriends that the way you were making puppy eyes at her and falling for her was becoming so embarrassing especially after your wife kept dropping by at irregular intervals).

    My original form of this sort of test question was (approx.) to posit that you had to solicit applicants for a demanding software job in NYC and were presented with lists of people with their telephone numbers. One list had exclusively Jewish sounding names. Another had names like Leroy, Da'Shawn, Dwayne, Cassius and Makayla. Which list do you pick up first? In the direct IQ case you would be invited to interview half a dozen of the candidates with the right paper qualifications and offered the chance to choose the six from the 125ers or the 115 list....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    See Comment #57 by J.Thompson in re 0.07 point difference.

    So, you think "academic" jobs could be awarded on a basis of IQ alone? I can only assume that a plumber with an IQ of 160 would have preference over a physicist with IQ of 159, for a position as lecturer on nuclear physics?

    By golly, sounds like a hell of a plan! Let's get started!

    Read again. I wrote “IF academic jobs would be” not SHOULD. Can’t you read?

    Re .07: the study reported here by dr Thompson, under which you are commenting, reports 4IQ; _one_ of the references reports no difference in general ability; instead of commenting on the finding of 4 IQ points, you are attacking one of the studies used

    There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points – if it’s larger, the communication is supposedly impossible. It’s interesting that you’re finding 150IQ people to be troublesome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Read again. I wrote “IF academic jobs would be” not SHOULD. Can’t you read?
     
    Can I read? I've been told my ability to read and understand is rather good. Can YOU read? Do you understand what the word "If" means in terms of conditional instantiation?

    You state that I am attacking a study by quoting directly from the author of this article. I ask again: Can YOU read?

    I have no idea of what you reference with regard to: "There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points." Perhaps this is some verified research you fail to credit?

    "It’s interesting that you’re finding 150IQ people to be troublesome." Didn't say that; you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said. I said that WE found (corporate HR services) high-IQ people with a poor work history to be troublemakers.

    Your mileage may vary, and I am quite sure it does. Ciao, baby.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. szopen says:
    @James Thompson
    Prof Lynn replies:

    In the Camarata and Woodcock 2006 paper in the age groups 19-79, men have an advantage of 2.21 IQ points on fluid reasoning (gf) and an advantage of .07 IQ points on general intellectual ability .

    I’ve seen many times the claim that gf is often found to be same or almost same as g; how comes there is such a difference here? Do they mean “general intellectual ability” to be “g” or something else?

    Moreover, did he really meant 0.07 points 0r 0.07 SD?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @szopen
    Read again. I wrote "IF academic jobs would be" not SHOULD. Can't you read?

    Re .07: the study reported here by dr Thompson, under which you are commenting, reports 4IQ; _one_ of the references reports no difference in general ability; instead of commenting on the finding of 4 IQ points, you are attacking one of the studies used

    There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points - if it's larger, the communication is supposedly impossible. It's interesting that you're finding 150IQ people to be troublesome.

    Read again. I wrote “IF academic jobs would be” not SHOULD. Can’t you read?

    Can I read? I’ve been told my ability to read and understand is rather good. Can YOU read? Do you understand what the word “If” means in terms of conditional instantiation?

    You state that I am attacking a study by quoting directly from the author of this article. I ask again: Can YOU read?

    I have no idea of what you reference with regard to: “There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points.” Perhaps this is some verified research you fail to credit?

    “It’s interesting that you’re finding 150IQ people to be troublesome.” Didn’t say that; you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said. I said that WE found (corporate HR services) high-IQ people with a poor work history to be troublemakers.

    Your mileage may vary, and I am quite sure it does. Ciao, baby.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    (1) Given that I referred my earlier comment (it was #83, if you have missed it) where I stated clearly "assuming IQ measures something..." i would say it should be clear that "if" means "hypothetically, if...". But since I am not a native speaker, and you are, I assume this is an error on my part. Let me restate then "in a hypothetical world, where all PhD would be given on basis on IQ alone, men would be 2/3 of the PhDs"

    (2) Lynn, as quoted here by dr Thompson, have not found 0.07. He wrote "In the Camarata and Woodcock 2006 paper ... " i.e. one of papers he quoted. Lynn however found overall 4IQ points.

    In other words, its as if I would write "A found out men earn 100$ than women, B found out men earn the same as women (actually 1 cent more, and C found men earn 150$ more than women. Based on those studies, using complicated algorithms and my own research I think men earn 125$ more than women" and you would started "1 cent of difference? This is ridiculous!". Attacking method, doubting the way author reached the conclusion, explaining that study A should be given more weight are all valid criticisms. Attacking author by laughing at difference found by one of quoted studies is not.

    (3) I referred to the urban legend, which reappears quite often on the net, that the maximum range of communication is +-2SD, ie 30IQ points. In fact, the basis for this particular myth is an old study, where author (based on her intuition or personal observations, it seems) claimed that leaders cannot be smarter more than 30 IQ points. The myth is so popular and persistent I though you would recognise it, especially since you claim you are familiar with IQ testing.

    (4) " you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said." Not my intention. Apologise.

    I would say that there might be jobs where high IQ might be a hindrance. But remembering the results of the longitudinal study which followed high IQ children up to the adulthood (mentioned also by dr Thompson some time ago), where - in comparison to average Joe - they amassed impressive achievements no matter whether measured in number of PhDs, patents or income - I would say that IQ is not that useless measure after all.

    It's not that I claim all high IQ people automatically make better workers. It's that I claim that given large groups of people, where the only information given would be their average IQ, if I would have to bet real money on their results on any kind of job requiring some intelligence, I would prefer to bet on people with higher average IQ (and not on the one with girls with largest boobs)
    , @res

    I have no idea of what you reference with regard to: “There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points.” Perhaps this is some verified research you fail to credit?
     
    (not szopen, but I have some interest in this topic)

    This link discusses that idea and makes some effort to find references (also see comments): http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/08/31/myth-30-iq-communication-range/

    Per Google books the Heinlein quote mentioned by Steve Sailer in the comments appears on page 112 of Space Cadet: https://books.google.com/books?id=xH9hbmGYlVsC
    This variant is leader/follower difference which is even more interesting IMHO. It goes a long way towards explaining why the non/commissioned officer split is useful for military leadership. I am curious about iSteve's speculation concerning possible military research on this topic.

    Obviously the idea is an oversimplification. The communication gap does not have a hard threshold at 30 IQ points (aka 2 SD) and it depends greatly on the topic under discussion. I do think there is something to the idea though. One thing that is interesting is that I think around a 115 IQ is the worst possible vantage point to observe this phenomenon. Those people are likely to be college graduates and not spend much time interacting in a beyond superficial manner with below 85 (-30, bottom 1/6) IQ people. And the above 145 (+30) IQ people are about 1 in 1000 in the general population and tend (IME) to concentrate a fair bit academically, professionally, and geographically. Unless the 115 IQ person spends significant time in those concentrated area I don't think they are likely to encounter many of the 145+ types.

    For me the big difference I see is abstract/concrete communication ability and that split seems to have a non-obvious relationship to IQ.

    This is somewhat related: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-big-does-iq-gap-have-to-be-before.html

    Looked at another way the implication is that a 145+ IQ person will have trouble communicating with 5/6 of the population (and it just gets worse from there, quickly!).

    P.S. Anyone have additional thoughts on this?

    P.P.S. I am very curious how you (collectively) managed to come to the following conclusion if you were not looking at IQ. What did you use to identify the 150 IQ individuals?

    “It’s interesting that you’re finding 150IQ people to be troublesome.” Didn’t say that; you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said. I said that WE found (corporate HR services) high-IQ people with a poor work history to be troublemakers.
     
    , @reiner Tor

    I’ve been told my ability to read and understand is rather good.
     
    On an anonymous forum or comment thread anybody can write or boast about anything, but it's useless to boast about one's own ability to read and understand. People can draw their own conclusions based on one's commenting history anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. res says:
    @James Thompson
    Thanks. I think that this field is very well covered by Hassabis.
    His teams are way, way ahead on these sorts of issues. I would see what they are up to first, because unless one recruits the best players one could waste time.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/artificial-general-intelligence-von

    Thanks for bringing this up again. Motivated me to finally watch his talk. One thing which really struck me was the rate (and consistency) of improvement (~1 rank per month) mentioned at 56:00.

    I had not been paying close attention since the Lee Sedol victory so went back to check if the rank improvement rate continued and AFAICT it did. Topping out at 1,000 Elo points above where it was at the time of the talk-on a single machine no less! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo#Versions

    His three schools of Go forcing them out of local maxima comment a minute or so later was very interesting. I wonder if he still feels that way now. I guess the comment could be viewed as “relatively.”

    Some interesting thoughts on intuition and creativity starting around 58:15

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Nice dodging thanks to my leaving it open by not insisting you had to choose someone quick smart.
     
    Oh, I forgot. Sorry about the dodge.

    Faced with an absolute necessity to hire someone within 2 hours, you pick the best-looking female having the biggest tits. After all, within the next 30 days you're going to have to recruit, evaluate, and hire someone who can actually do the job.

    I trust you have the right technique to harass the female into leaving without bringing a costly suit against your company. (I’m sure you look better than Harvey Weinstein naked and wouldn’t be inviting her to share a shower. Maybe you can have her explaining/boasting to her girlfriends that the way you were making puppy eyes at her and falling for her was becoming so embarrassing especially after your wife kept dropping by at irregular intervals).

    My original form of this sort of test question was (approx.) to posit that you had to solicit applicants for a demanding software job in NYC and were presented with lists of people with their telephone numbers. One list had exclusively Jewish sounding names. Another had names like Leroy, Da’Shawn, Dwayne, Cassius and Makayla. Which list do you pick up first? In the direct IQ case you would be invited to interview half a dozen of the candidates with the right paper qualifications and offered the chance to choose the six from the 125ers or the 115 list….

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I trust you have the right technique to harass the female into leaving without bringing a costly suit against your company.
     
    Put them at a desk in the janitorial office in the basement, with no Internet access. Two weeks, max, and they were gone.

    My original form of this sort of test question was (approx.) to posit that you had to solicit applicants for a demanding software job in NYC and were presented with lists of people with their telephone numbers.
     
    Well, I always worked in the real world. Employees are both assets and liabilities. The choosing of employees, IMO, should never be anything but a process of careful assessment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @John Jeremiah Smith

    I do not know if you will find it relevant, but a lot of work on this issue has been done by Schmidt.
     
    I've hired dozens of people. IQ was never a consideration for the great majority -- invariably it was experience, demonstrated ability and interview assessment that made the real difference.

    I will mention that IQ, if available, was a basis for immediate rejection as either too low or too high. Depending upon the requirements of a given job, low intelligence scores tended be slow learners, and we sure didn't need any of those. High-IQ people are more likely to be troublemakers -- if you saw an SB score over 150 applying for certain positions, that score might contribute to ruling-out that individual. A really good interview and work history might make a difference there, but any high-IQ individual with a spotty work history is typically trouble on two legs; worse if it's female.

    Apart from secretaries and bookkeepers nearly all my experience was of hiring directors of research or appointing professors and you remind me of needing to sack one who had topped the state at school, lectured university maths and got a first class degree in law! Unusual but not unique.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Read again. I wrote “IF academic jobs would be” not SHOULD. Can’t you read?
     
    Can I read? I've been told my ability to read and understand is rather good. Can YOU read? Do you understand what the word "If" means in terms of conditional instantiation?

    You state that I am attacking a study by quoting directly from the author of this article. I ask again: Can YOU read?

    I have no idea of what you reference with regard to: "There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points." Perhaps this is some verified research you fail to credit?

    "It’s interesting that you’re finding 150IQ people to be troublesome." Didn't say that; you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said. I said that WE found (corporate HR services) high-IQ people with a poor work history to be troublemakers.

    Your mileage may vary, and I am quite sure it does. Ciao, baby.

    (1) Given that I referred my earlier comment (it was #83, if you have missed it) where I stated clearly “assuming IQ measures something…” i would say it should be clear that “if” means “hypothetically, if…”. But since I am not a native speaker, and you are, I assume this is an error on my part. Let me restate then “in a hypothetical world, where all PhD would be given on basis on IQ alone, men would be 2/3 of the PhDs”

    (2) Lynn, as quoted here by dr Thompson, have not found 0.07. He wrote “In the Camarata and Woodcock 2006 paper … ” i.e. one of papers he quoted. Lynn however found overall 4IQ points.

    In other words, its as if I would write “A found out men earn 100$ than women, B found out men earn the same as women (actually 1 cent more, and C found men earn 150$ more than women. Based on those studies, using complicated algorithms and my own research I think men earn 125$ more than women” and you would started “1 cent of difference? This is ridiculous!”. Attacking method, doubting the way author reached the conclusion, explaining that study A should be given more weight are all valid criticisms. Attacking author by laughing at difference found by one of quoted studies is not.

    (3) I referred to the urban legend, which reappears quite often on the net, that the maximum range of communication is +-2SD, ie 30IQ points. In fact, the basis for this particular myth is an old study, where author (based on her intuition or personal observations, it seems) claimed that leaders cannot be smarter more than 30 IQ points. The myth is so popular and persistent I though you would recognise it, especially since you claim you are familiar with IQ testing.

    (4) ” you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said.” Not my intention. Apologise.

    I would say that there might be jobs where high IQ might be a hindrance. But remembering the results of the longitudinal study which followed high IQ children up to the adulthood (mentioned also by dr Thompson some time ago), where – in comparison to average Joe – they amassed impressive achievements no matter whether measured in number of PhDs, patents or income – I would say that IQ is not that useless measure after all.

    It’s not that I claim all high IQ people automatically make better workers. It’s that I claim that given large groups of people, where the only information given would be their average IQ, if I would have to bet real money on their results on any kind of job requiring some intelligence, I would prefer to bet on people with higher average IQ (and not on the one with girls with largest boobs)

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    It’s not that I claim all high IQ people automatically make better workers. It’s that I claim that given large groups of people, where the only information given would be their average IQ, if I would have to bet real money on their results on any kind of job requiring some intelligence, I would prefer to bet on people with higher average IQ.
     
    Understood. I was not misunderstanding your preferences; I was objecting to them on a basis of pure real-world practicality.

    Yes, smart people may be better employees, if all other factors are, or are close to being, optimal. However, intelligence is not, in my opinion and experience, the most important factor, nor even a particularly important factor in the selection of productive employees. Work history, specific experience, attitude, aptitude and resourcefulness are far and away more important.

    That's my experience, my opinion. As always, you are entitled to divergent, even directly opposing opinion.

    This topic is very close to being played-out. Perhaps something equally entertaining will appear by agency of Mr. Unz, soon. ;-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Wizard of Oz
    I trust you have the right technique to harass the female into leaving without bringing a costly suit against your company. (I'm sure you look better than Harvey Weinstein naked and wouldn't be inviting her to share a shower. Maybe you can have her explaining/boasting to her girlfriends that the way you were making puppy eyes at her and falling for her was becoming so embarrassing especially after your wife kept dropping by at irregular intervals).

    My original form of this sort of test question was (approx.) to posit that you had to solicit applicants for a demanding software job in NYC and were presented with lists of people with their telephone numbers. One list had exclusively Jewish sounding names. Another had names like Leroy, Da'Shawn, Dwayne, Cassius and Makayla. Which list do you pick up first? In the direct IQ case you would be invited to interview half a dozen of the candidates with the right paper qualifications and offered the chance to choose the six from the 125ers or the 115 list....

    I trust you have the right technique to harass the female into leaving without bringing a costly suit against your company.

    Put them at a desk in the janitorial office in the basement, with no Internet access. Two weeks, max, and they were gone.

    My original form of this sort of test question was (approx.) to posit that you had to solicit applicants for a demanding software job in NYC and were presented with lists of people with their telephone numbers.

    Well, I always worked in the real world. Employees are both assets and liabilities. The choosing of employees, IMO, should never be anything but a process of careful assessment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Well, I always worked in the real world. Employees are both assets and liabilities.
     
    You have spent a fair amount of time here asserting your HR experience and expertise. Given that, I think it is relevant to ask what sort of industry and positions you were hiring for. There is a big difference between hiring professors (as Wizard of Oz has done) and hiring broom pushers. What proportion of your hires were working in positions that you think might benefit from a higher than average college grad IQ? Do HR personnel benefit from IQ at all?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    The choosing of employees, IMO, should never be anything but a process of careful assessment.

    Indeed but you have to start somewhere as your previous comment about eliminating those with too low or too high IQ scores acknowledges. True you won't worry much about IQs if they all have high honours degrees in something relevant.
    , @reiner Tor

    Put them at a desk in the janitorial office in the basement, with no Internet access. Two weeks, max, and they were gone.
     
    I think this could be the basis of a discrimination lawsuit: the sexist boss put her at a desk in the janitorial office in the basement, with no Internet access (cutting her away from any hope of advancement as well), in the hope of getting rid of her in two weeks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. dcite says:
    @jacques sheete
    I'm in the Coolidge camp.

    Men 4 Points Ahead?
     
    Yawn...It may as well be 40 points ahead for all the good it does. The reason is that women know that men are ruled by their balls and not their brains.

    Moral: The IQ obsessed may as well just keep wanking away.

    Yawn…It may as well be 40 points ahead for all the good it does. The reason is that women know that men are ruled by their balls and not their brains.

    Well, they are very much front and center in male consciousness. Fig leaves have proven their metaphorical and social use over the ages. But I once read a paragraph in a psychology book which said that men are much more likely to be able to focus exclusively and intensively on one thing. Or two. Mechanical and abstract things outside the realm of affections. disaffections, and duties. It made sense. I just couldn’t imagine any of the girls I knew obsessing about chess 24/7, for 40 years, even the ones who enjoyed playing it and did well. Closest thing I saw to it were ballet dancers and some musicians. They were even more anomalous than males like that. IQ is not the major factor in this difference, but of course it would affect the aggregate data.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @szopen
    (1) Given that I referred my earlier comment (it was #83, if you have missed it) where I stated clearly "assuming IQ measures something..." i would say it should be clear that "if" means "hypothetically, if...". But since I am not a native speaker, and you are, I assume this is an error on my part. Let me restate then "in a hypothetical world, where all PhD would be given on basis on IQ alone, men would be 2/3 of the PhDs"

    (2) Lynn, as quoted here by dr Thompson, have not found 0.07. He wrote "In the Camarata and Woodcock 2006 paper ... " i.e. one of papers he quoted. Lynn however found overall 4IQ points.

    In other words, its as if I would write "A found out men earn 100$ than women, B found out men earn the same as women (actually 1 cent more, and C found men earn 150$ more than women. Based on those studies, using complicated algorithms and my own research I think men earn 125$ more than women" and you would started "1 cent of difference? This is ridiculous!". Attacking method, doubting the way author reached the conclusion, explaining that study A should be given more weight are all valid criticisms. Attacking author by laughing at difference found by one of quoted studies is not.

    (3) I referred to the urban legend, which reappears quite often on the net, that the maximum range of communication is +-2SD, ie 30IQ points. In fact, the basis for this particular myth is an old study, where author (based on her intuition or personal observations, it seems) claimed that leaders cannot be smarter more than 30 IQ points. The myth is so popular and persistent I though you would recognise it, especially since you claim you are familiar with IQ testing.

    (4) " you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said." Not my intention. Apologise.

    I would say that there might be jobs where high IQ might be a hindrance. But remembering the results of the longitudinal study which followed high IQ children up to the adulthood (mentioned also by dr Thompson some time ago), where - in comparison to average Joe - they amassed impressive achievements no matter whether measured in number of PhDs, patents or income - I would say that IQ is not that useless measure after all.

    It's not that I claim all high IQ people automatically make better workers. It's that I claim that given large groups of people, where the only information given would be their average IQ, if I would have to bet real money on their results on any kind of job requiring some intelligence, I would prefer to bet on people with higher average IQ (and not on the one with girls with largest boobs)

    It’s not that I claim all high IQ people automatically make better workers. It’s that I claim that given large groups of people, where the only information given would be their average IQ, if I would have to bet real money on their results on any kind of job requiring some intelligence, I would prefer to bet on people with higher average IQ.

    Understood. I was not misunderstanding your preferences; I was objecting to them on a basis of pure real-world practicality.

    Yes, smart people may be better employees, if all other factors are, or are close to being, optimal. However, intelligence is not, in my opinion and experience, the most important factor, nor even a particularly important factor in the selection of productive employees. Work history, specific experience, attitude, aptitude and resourcefulness are far and away more important.

    That’s my experience, my opinion. As always, you are entitled to divergent, even directly opposing opinion.

    This topic is very close to being played-out. Perhaps something equally entertaining will appear by agency of Mr. Unz, soon. ;-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. res says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Read again. I wrote “IF academic jobs would be” not SHOULD. Can’t you read?
     
    Can I read? I've been told my ability to read and understand is rather good. Can YOU read? Do you understand what the word "If" means in terms of conditional instantiation?

    You state that I am attacking a study by quoting directly from the author of this article. I ask again: Can YOU read?

    I have no idea of what you reference with regard to: "There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points." Perhaps this is some verified research you fail to credit?

    "It’s interesting that you’re finding 150IQ people to be troublesome." Didn't say that; you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said. I said that WE found (corporate HR services) high-IQ people with a poor work history to be troublemakers.

    Your mileage may vary, and I am quite sure it does. Ciao, baby.

    I have no idea of what you reference with regard to: “There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points.” Perhaps this is some verified research you fail to credit?

    (not szopen, but I have some interest in this topic)

    This link discusses that idea and makes some effort to find references (also see comments): http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/08/31/myth-30-iq-communication-range/

    Per Google books the Heinlein quote mentioned by Steve Sailer in the comments appears on page 112 of Space Cadet: https://books.google.com/books?id=xH9hbmGYlVsC
    This variant is leader/follower difference which is even more interesting IMHO. It goes a long way towards explaining why the non/commissioned officer split is useful for military leadership. I am curious about iSteve’s speculation concerning possible military research on this topic.

    Obviously the idea is an oversimplification. The communication gap does not have a hard threshold at 30 IQ points (aka 2 SD) and it depends greatly on the topic under discussion. I do think there is something to the idea though. One thing that is interesting is that I think around a 115 IQ is the worst possible vantage point to observe this phenomenon. Those people are likely to be college graduates and not spend much time interacting in a beyond superficial manner with below 85 (-30, bottom 1/6) IQ people. And the above 145 (+30) IQ people are about 1 in 1000 in the general population and tend (IME) to concentrate a fair bit academically, professionally, and geographically. Unless the 115 IQ person spends significant time in those concentrated area I don’t think they are likely to encounter many of the 145+ types.

    For me the big difference I see is abstract/concrete communication ability and that split seems to have a non-obvious relationship to IQ.

    This is somewhat related: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-big-does-iq-gap-have-to-be-before.html

    Looked at another way the implication is that a 145+ IQ person will have trouble communicating with 5/6 of the population (and it just gets worse from there, quickly!).

    P.S. Anyone have additional thoughts on this?

    P.P.S. I am very curious how you (collectively) managed to come to the following conclusion if you were not looking at IQ. What did you use to identify the 150 IQ individuals?

    “It’s interesting that you’re finding 150IQ people to be troublesome.” Didn’t say that; you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said. I said that WE found (corporate HR services) high-IQ people with a poor work history to be troublemakers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    I tried to identify the resaerch behind this claim and I failed; yet a lot of people I interact with (who are most likely high above the average IQ) fall in love with the idea immedietely after they hear it. This could be a phenomenon resulting from some psychological issues ("huh! So that's why I was social recluse in school, because they were all idiots so they couldn't understand me!") , but I must say that in grammar school i stumbled many times into people, whom I just couldn't understand. Once my teacher asked me to help with math with one guy from my class (or maybe he asked for it himself?).

    It was a archetypical bad boy, a lot of success with girls, you know the type. He later started dealing with drugs, then I heard he became a snitcher and had to escape to another town. ANyway. There was the one and only time when I saw fear in his eyes. I was explaining to him some trivial mathematical equation, maybe it was Pitagoras, or something else. After the tenths example I was so frustrated I started literally screaming at him the definitions; and then I realized he had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. I could talk about drinking, whoring, laugh at his poor jokes and I knew what kind of jokes I had to say to make him laugh. But he seemed to be unable to understand the most basic abstract concept, as hwo to identify which side of the triangle is "hypotenuse" (which, in Polish has very logical, intutive and simple name). And yet when we were talking simple, concrete things he seemed like a normal guy.

    I had many other interactions like with this guy. Women, men, all seemingly normal, but unable to abstract away, use logic rules. I know also few professors who are waaaay smarter than me and I often wonder whether they feel the same about me.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    P.P.S. I am very curious how you (collectively) managed to come to the following conclusion if you were not looking at IQ. What did you use to identify the 150 IQ individuals?
     
    For some reason, individuals scoring 130 or higher (typically Stanford-Binet) IQ score tend to include that information in their application materials.

    I am aware that it is very much pro forma to find IQ score referenced in applications for academic positions. I suspect that the opinion of some commenters here may be influenced by that, um, tradition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. res says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    I trust you have the right technique to harass the female into leaving without bringing a costly suit against your company.
     
    Put them at a desk in the janitorial office in the basement, with no Internet access. Two weeks, max, and they were gone.

    My original form of this sort of test question was (approx.) to posit that you had to solicit applicants for a demanding software job in NYC and were presented with lists of people with their telephone numbers.
     
    Well, I always worked in the real world. Employees are both assets and liabilities. The choosing of employees, IMO, should never be anything but a process of careful assessment.

    Well, I always worked in the real world. Employees are both assets and liabilities.

    You have spent a fair amount of time here asserting your HR experience and expertise. Given that, I think it is relevant to ask what sort of industry and positions you were hiring for. There is a big difference between hiring professors (as Wizard of Oz has done) and hiring broom pushers. What proportion of your hires were working in positions that you think might benefit from a higher than average college grad IQ? Do HR personnel benefit from IQ at all?

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    You have spent a fair amount of time here asserting your HR experience and expertise. Given that, I think it is relevant to ask what sort of industry and positions you were hiring for.
     
    You are gearing up to something deprecatory, so that you may achieve a personally-realized sense of ascendancy with regard to my statements of experience and opinion.

    I have no interest in providing you with any details of my employment history, even should you decide -- selflessly, of course -- to provide your own. I am not the slightest bit interested in proving anything to you. This is a forum for comments, and you may take them at face value, or not at all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @John Jeremiah Smith

    I trust you have the right technique to harass the female into leaving without bringing a costly suit against your company.
     
    Put them at a desk in the janitorial office in the basement, with no Internet access. Two weeks, max, and they were gone.

    My original form of this sort of test question was (approx.) to posit that you had to solicit applicants for a demanding software job in NYC and were presented with lists of people with their telephone numbers.
     
    Well, I always worked in the real world. Employees are both assets and liabilities. The choosing of employees, IMO, should never be anything but a process of careful assessment.

    The choosing of employees, IMO, should never be anything but a process of careful assessment.

    Indeed but you have to start somewhere as your previous comment about eliminating those with too low or too high IQ scores acknowledges. True you won’t worry much about IQs if they all have high honours degrees in something relevant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Indeed but you have to start somewhere as your previous comment about eliminating those with too low or too high IQ scores acknowledges.
     
    We found that high-IQ people with a poor work history are not good candidates.

    To reiterate: "Only demonstrated merit, experience and ability are proper measures of suitability to employment, or, in the case of inexperienced new hires, aptitude and attitude."

    I'll stick with that. You guys can hire all the geniuses you can find. I hope you can get enough work done to keep your company in business.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. szopen says:
    @res

    I have no idea of what you reference with regard to: “There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points.” Perhaps this is some verified research you fail to credit?
     
    (not szopen, but I have some interest in this topic)

    This link discusses that idea and makes some effort to find references (also see comments): http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/08/31/myth-30-iq-communication-range/

    Per Google books the Heinlein quote mentioned by Steve Sailer in the comments appears on page 112 of Space Cadet: https://books.google.com/books?id=xH9hbmGYlVsC
    This variant is leader/follower difference which is even more interesting IMHO. It goes a long way towards explaining why the non/commissioned officer split is useful for military leadership. I am curious about iSteve's speculation concerning possible military research on this topic.

    Obviously the idea is an oversimplification. The communication gap does not have a hard threshold at 30 IQ points (aka 2 SD) and it depends greatly on the topic under discussion. I do think there is something to the idea though. One thing that is interesting is that I think around a 115 IQ is the worst possible vantage point to observe this phenomenon. Those people are likely to be college graduates and not spend much time interacting in a beyond superficial manner with below 85 (-30, bottom 1/6) IQ people. And the above 145 (+30) IQ people are about 1 in 1000 in the general population and tend (IME) to concentrate a fair bit academically, professionally, and geographically. Unless the 115 IQ person spends significant time in those concentrated area I don't think they are likely to encounter many of the 145+ types.

    For me the big difference I see is abstract/concrete communication ability and that split seems to have a non-obvious relationship to IQ.

    This is somewhat related: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-big-does-iq-gap-have-to-be-before.html

    Looked at another way the implication is that a 145+ IQ person will have trouble communicating with 5/6 of the population (and it just gets worse from there, quickly!).

    P.S. Anyone have additional thoughts on this?

    P.P.S. I am very curious how you (collectively) managed to come to the following conclusion if you were not looking at IQ. What did you use to identify the 150 IQ individuals?

    “It’s interesting that you’re finding 150IQ people to be troublesome.” Didn’t say that; you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said. I said that WE found (corporate HR services) high-IQ people with a poor work history to be troublemakers.
     

    I tried to identify the resaerch behind this claim and I failed; yet a lot of people I interact with (who are most likely high above the average IQ) fall in love with the idea immedietely after they hear it. This could be a phenomenon resulting from some psychological issues (“huh! So that’s why I was social recluse in school, because they were all idiots so they couldn’t understand me!”) , but I must say that in grammar school i stumbled many times into people, whom I just couldn’t understand. Once my teacher asked me to help with math with one guy from my class (or maybe he asked for it himself?).

    It was a archetypical bad boy, a lot of success with girls, you know the type. He later started dealing with drugs, then I heard he became a snitcher and had to escape to another town. ANyway. There was the one and only time when I saw fear in his eyes. I was explaining to him some trivial mathematical equation, maybe it was Pitagoras, or something else. After the tenths example I was so frustrated I started literally screaming at him the definitions; and then I realized he had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. I could talk about drinking, whoring, laugh at his poor jokes and I knew what kind of jokes I had to say to make him laugh. But he seemed to be unable to understand the most basic abstract concept, as hwo to identify which side of the triangle is “hypotenuse” (which, in Polish has very logical, intutive and simple name). And yet when we were talking simple, concrete things he seemed like a normal guy.

    I had many other interactions like with this guy. Women, men, all seemingly normal, but unable to abstract away, use logic rules. I know also few professors who are waaaay smarter than me and I often wonder whether they feel the same about me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Your experience has some commonality with mine. It led to some compartmentalization of my life growing up (and even now to a lesser degree). I had a number of close friends from the least academically able track and did not find then notably less smart than average (oddly somewhat the opposite, if anything) outside of a school context (e.g. if we were building something physical). I have always been curious why that was.

    One thing I have always found striking is the difference in the dynamic when objective measures are present (e.g. school) and when that is not the case (e.g. much of work). Some people seem utterly incapable of recognizing ability/expertise unless it is accompanied by objective evidence (or a reasonable facsimile, like résumé bullets).

    Regarding people falling in love with the idea. It makes a convenient justification for a variety of bad outcomes. I think it is hard to think about the idea dispassionately for most people (including me). For some it is a great rationalization tool for failure while for others it seems insulting.
    , @res

    I tried to identify the resaerch behind this claim and I failed
     
    Based on the Heinlein quote date (Space Cadet published 1948) I find iSteve's military research idea (in particular US WWII era) plausible. But let's look some more.

    Here is some work looking at intelligence and leadership but not taking into account follower intelligence: http://www.timothy-judge.com/Leader%20IQ--JAP%20published.pdf

    This paper from Dean Simonton (see libgen) looks very relevant: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-14442-001


    Intelligence and Personal Influence in Groups:

    Four models are progressively developed that provide a conceptual basis for a curvilinear relation between intelligence and an individual's influence over other group members. Model 1, by assuming that influence is a function of percentile placement in intelligence, predicts that beyond an IQ of about 120 intelligence bears anegligible connection with influence. Model 2 adds the consideration of the degree of comprehension by potential followers, yieldinga nonmonotonic function with a predicted peak IQ of about 108 (or a 0.5 SD above the mean). Model 3 incorporates the criticism factor that acknowledges a group member's vulnerability to intellectual superiors, and thereby predicts a second nonmonotonic function with an optimal IQ of about 119 (or 1.2 SD above the mean). Model 4 expands on the fact that the mean group IQ varies across different groups and, consequently, predicts a high correlation between the group mean IQ and the IQ of its most influential member—but with a leader-follower gap of between 8 and 20 points (depending on the submodel).
     

    The paper also has some historical discussion including:

    Thus, McCuen (1929) surmised that "in a democratic society the leader must not be too far detached from the group" (p. 95).

     

    One issue with McCuen's work is he was looking at leaders at Stanford (so range restriction). I was unable to find a link to his work, but it is referenced in many places.

    There is much additional detail in the Simonton paper. Figure 3 caught my eye. It estimates the expected proportion of followers as a function of intelligence for Model 3. The peak is at 119 which is quite close to my estimate of 115 as the IQ where the "problem" is least visible.

    Also see this FKA Max comment which mentions that 1985 Simonton paper and links a more recent one: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1820124

    This 74 page US Army document has some relevant information including: www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA126852

    Hollingworth (1926) reported that leaders are likely to be more intelligent than those they lead. His investigations of IQ indicated that in groups averaging an IQ of 100, the leader falls in the 115-130 IQ range. In addition, persons with higher IQ's, namely 160, have greater difficulty leading a group whose average IQ is 100. A leader having an IQ of 160 increases the probability that his/her communication (verbal proficiency) will not be comprehended with a lower achieving group. But, a person of such high calibre is more likely to experience success leading higher, achieving groups averaging an IQ of 130 or better.
    ...
    Therefore, in the leadership selection process, a candidates' IQ score should be considered prior to actual selection. To experience cost effective, productive leadership, the potential leader's IQ score would be slightly above the mean score of the group s/he is to lead.
    ...
    Stogdill (1948) noted that extreme discrepancies of intelligence between leaders and followers work against the exercise. Supporting that finding, and those of Holllngworth (1926) and McCuen (1929), Ghselll (1963) discovered that persons attaining both high and low IQ scores are less likely to acquire success in leadership (management) roles than those with IQ scores at an intermediate level.

     

    Hollingworth (1926) is not properly referenced in that paper but appears to be her book Gifted Children. This page and the following have the most relevant bit (note this refers to children! I find it surprising that the army paper elided this detail): https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008033394;view=1up;seq=156

    In observing who are the popular leaders in various groups of children, it appears to the present writer that the intelligence of the leader is related in a fairly predictable manner, other traits being favorable, to the intelligence of the led. Among children with a mean IQ of 100, the IQ of the leader is likely to fall between 115 and 130 IQ. That is, the leader is likely too ‘much more intelligent, than the average of the group led. If there is in an ordinary group of children a child of about their own mean age, relatively large, handsome, amiable, courageous, generous, and strong, and of IQ between 115 and 130, such a child is likely to be a leader (due regard being had to social attitudes governing leadership as related to sex). Above 130 IQ, however, the chances of leadership among a group such as described, appear to decrease till, beyond IQ of 160, a child has very little chance of being a popular leader. In a group with a mean at 130 a child of IQ as high as 160 may well lead, for Such a group gives allegiance to a degree of insight above that which wins the average group, other traits being favorable.
     
    P.S. Santoculto (and others), if you haven't seen Simonton's books on creativity you might want to take a look. Here is one example: https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Genius-Darwinian-Perspectives-Creativity/dp/0195128796
    Dr. Thompson makes a number of Simonton references in his blog (and comments), but I did not see the creativity books explicitly mentioned. I think a quoted aside in this one is worth repeating here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/asians-bright-but-not-curious/

    analyses by Simonton (1998, 2009) have found that more original thinkers are moderately high in aspects of psychopathic personality, such as low Conscientiousness and low Agreeableness, which they combine with very high intelligence.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @res

    I have no idea of what you reference with regard to: “There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points.” Perhaps this is some verified research you fail to credit?
     
    (not szopen, but I have some interest in this topic)

    This link discusses that idea and makes some effort to find references (also see comments): http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/08/31/myth-30-iq-communication-range/

    Per Google books the Heinlein quote mentioned by Steve Sailer in the comments appears on page 112 of Space Cadet: https://books.google.com/books?id=xH9hbmGYlVsC
    This variant is leader/follower difference which is even more interesting IMHO. It goes a long way towards explaining why the non/commissioned officer split is useful for military leadership. I am curious about iSteve's speculation concerning possible military research on this topic.

    Obviously the idea is an oversimplification. The communication gap does not have a hard threshold at 30 IQ points (aka 2 SD) and it depends greatly on the topic under discussion. I do think there is something to the idea though. One thing that is interesting is that I think around a 115 IQ is the worst possible vantage point to observe this phenomenon. Those people are likely to be college graduates and not spend much time interacting in a beyond superficial manner with below 85 (-30, bottom 1/6) IQ people. And the above 145 (+30) IQ people are about 1 in 1000 in the general population and tend (IME) to concentrate a fair bit academically, professionally, and geographically. Unless the 115 IQ person spends significant time in those concentrated area I don't think they are likely to encounter many of the 145+ types.

    For me the big difference I see is abstract/concrete communication ability and that split seems to have a non-obvious relationship to IQ.

    This is somewhat related: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2014/04/how-big-does-iq-gap-have-to-be-before.html

    Looked at another way the implication is that a 145+ IQ person will have trouble communicating with 5/6 of the population (and it just gets worse from there, quickly!).

    P.S. Anyone have additional thoughts on this?

    P.P.S. I am very curious how you (collectively) managed to come to the following conclusion if you were not looking at IQ. What did you use to identify the 150 IQ individuals?

    “It’s interesting that you’re finding 150IQ people to be troublesome.” Didn’t say that; you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said. I said that WE found (corporate HR services) high-IQ people with a poor work history to be troublemakers.
     

    P.P.S. I am very curious how you (collectively) managed to come to the following conclusion if you were not looking at IQ. What did you use to identify the 150 IQ individuals?

    For some reason, individuals scoring 130 or higher (typically Stanford-Binet) IQ score tend to include that information in their application materials.

    I am aware that it is very much pro forma to find IQ score referenced in applications for academic positions. I suspect that the opinion of some commenters here may be influenced by that, um, tradition.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @res

    Well, I always worked in the real world. Employees are both assets and liabilities.
     
    You have spent a fair amount of time here asserting your HR experience and expertise. Given that, I think it is relevant to ask what sort of industry and positions you were hiring for. There is a big difference between hiring professors (as Wizard of Oz has done) and hiring broom pushers. What proportion of your hires were working in positions that you think might benefit from a higher than average college grad IQ? Do HR personnel benefit from IQ at all?

    You have spent a fair amount of time here asserting your HR experience and expertise. Given that, I think it is relevant to ask what sort of industry and positions you were hiring for.

    You are gearing up to something deprecatory, so that you may achieve a personally-realized sense of ascendancy with regard to my statements of experience and opinion.

    I have no interest in providing you with any details of my employment history, even should you decide — selflessly, of course — to provide your own. I am not the slightest bit interested in proving anything to you. This is a forum for comments, and you may take them at face value, or not at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I have provided sufficient information about my background in other comments in this blog. I think my question was relevant for the reason I explicitly stated. That you refuse to answer speaks volumes.

    To repeat the reason:


    There is a big difference between hiring professors (as Wizard of Oz has done) and hiring broom pushers. What proportion of your hires were working in positions that you think might benefit from a higher than average college grad IQ?
     
    P.S. Given your vaguely going on about your background (an obvious assertion of authority IMHO) above I find your initial sentence more than a little bit funny. Thanks for the chuckle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @John Jeremiah Smith

    I trust you have the right technique to harass the female into leaving without bringing a costly suit against your company.
     
    Put them at a desk in the janitorial office in the basement, with no Internet access. Two weeks, max, and they were gone.

    My original form of this sort of test question was (approx.) to posit that you had to solicit applicants for a demanding software job in NYC and were presented with lists of people with their telephone numbers.
     
    Well, I always worked in the real world. Employees are both assets and liabilities. The choosing of employees, IMO, should never be anything but a process of careful assessment.

    Put them at a desk in the janitorial office in the basement, with no Internet access. Two weeks, max, and they were gone.

    I think this could be the basis of a discrimination lawsuit: the sexist boss put her at a desk in the janitorial office in the basement, with no Internet access (cutting her away from any hope of advancement as well), in the hope of getting rid of her in two weeks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Wizard of Oz
    The choosing of employees, IMO, should never be anything but a process of careful assessment.

    Indeed but you have to start somewhere as your previous comment about eliminating those with too low or too high IQ scores acknowledges. True you won't worry much about IQs if they all have high honours degrees in something relevant.

    Indeed but you have to start somewhere as your previous comment about eliminating those with too low or too high IQ scores acknowledges.

    We found that high-IQ people with a poor work history are not good candidates.

    To reiterate: “Only demonstrated merit, experience and ability are proper measures of suitability to employment, or, in the case of inexperienced new hires, aptitude and attitude.”

    I’ll stick with that. You guys can hire all the geniuses you can find. I hope you can get enough work done to keep your company in business.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Read again. I wrote “IF academic jobs would be” not SHOULD. Can’t you read?
     
    Can I read? I've been told my ability to read and understand is rather good. Can YOU read? Do you understand what the word "If" means in terms of conditional instantiation?

    You state that I am attacking a study by quoting directly from the author of this article. I ask again: Can YOU read?

    I have no idea of what you reference with regard to: "There is a commonly reported myth, that there is a communication range of about 30 IQ points." Perhaps this is some verified research you fail to credit?

    "It’s interesting that you’re finding 150IQ people to be troublesome." Didn't say that; you appear to be deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what is actually said. I said that WE found (corporate HR services) high-IQ people with a poor work history to be troublemakers.

    Your mileage may vary, and I am quite sure it does. Ciao, baby.

    I’ve been told my ability to read and understand is rather good.

    On an anonymous forum or comment thread anybody can write or boast about anything, but it’s useless to boast about one’s own ability to read and understand. People can draw their own conclusions based on one’s commenting history anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    On an anonymous forum or comment thread anybody can write or boast about anything, but it’s useless to boast about one’s own ability to read and understand. People can draw their own conclusions based on one’s commenting history anyway.
     
    LOL. People may draw their own conclusions based on current air temperature and humidity, for all the difference it makes.

    I keep saying "This is my experience, my opinion", and people keep insisting that I document my expertise and my infallibility, plus links to my theories and proofs.

    It cracks me up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. res says:
    @szopen
    I tried to identify the resaerch behind this claim and I failed; yet a lot of people I interact with (who are most likely high above the average IQ) fall in love with the idea immedietely after they hear it. This could be a phenomenon resulting from some psychological issues ("huh! So that's why I was social recluse in school, because they were all idiots so they couldn't understand me!") , but I must say that in grammar school i stumbled many times into people, whom I just couldn't understand. Once my teacher asked me to help with math with one guy from my class (or maybe he asked for it himself?).

    It was a archetypical bad boy, a lot of success with girls, you know the type. He later started dealing with drugs, then I heard he became a snitcher and had to escape to another town. ANyway. There was the one and only time when I saw fear in his eyes. I was explaining to him some trivial mathematical equation, maybe it was Pitagoras, or something else. After the tenths example I was so frustrated I started literally screaming at him the definitions; and then I realized he had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. I could talk about drinking, whoring, laugh at his poor jokes and I knew what kind of jokes I had to say to make him laugh. But he seemed to be unable to understand the most basic abstract concept, as hwo to identify which side of the triangle is "hypotenuse" (which, in Polish has very logical, intutive and simple name). And yet when we were talking simple, concrete things he seemed like a normal guy.

    I had many other interactions like with this guy. Women, men, all seemingly normal, but unable to abstract away, use logic rules. I know also few professors who are waaaay smarter than me and I often wonder whether they feel the same about me.

    Your experience has some commonality with mine. It led to some compartmentalization of my life growing up (and even now to a lesser degree). I had a number of close friends from the least academically able track and did not find then notably less smart than average (oddly somewhat the opposite, if anything) outside of a school context (e.g. if we were building something physical). I have always been curious why that was.

    One thing I have always found striking is the difference in the dynamic when objective measures are present (e.g. school) and when that is not the case (e.g. much of work). Some people seem utterly incapable of recognizing ability/expertise unless it is accompanied by objective evidence (or a reasonable facsimile, like résumé bullets).

    Regarding people falling in love with the idea. It makes a convenient justification for a variety of bad outcomes. I think it is hard to think about the idea dispassionately for most people (including me). For some it is a great rationalization tool for failure while for others it seems insulting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. res says:
    @szopen
    I tried to identify the resaerch behind this claim and I failed; yet a lot of people I interact with (who are most likely high above the average IQ) fall in love with the idea immedietely after they hear it. This could be a phenomenon resulting from some psychological issues ("huh! So that's why I was social recluse in school, because they were all idiots so they couldn't understand me!") , but I must say that in grammar school i stumbled many times into people, whom I just couldn't understand. Once my teacher asked me to help with math with one guy from my class (or maybe he asked for it himself?).

    It was a archetypical bad boy, a lot of success with girls, you know the type. He later started dealing with drugs, then I heard he became a snitcher and had to escape to another town. ANyway. There was the one and only time when I saw fear in his eyes. I was explaining to him some trivial mathematical equation, maybe it was Pitagoras, or something else. After the tenths example I was so frustrated I started literally screaming at him the definitions; and then I realized he had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. I could talk about drinking, whoring, laugh at his poor jokes and I knew what kind of jokes I had to say to make him laugh. But he seemed to be unable to understand the most basic abstract concept, as hwo to identify which side of the triangle is "hypotenuse" (which, in Polish has very logical, intutive and simple name). And yet when we were talking simple, concrete things he seemed like a normal guy.

    I had many other interactions like with this guy. Women, men, all seemingly normal, but unable to abstract away, use logic rules. I know also few professors who are waaaay smarter than me and I often wonder whether they feel the same about me.

    I tried to identify the resaerch behind this claim and I failed

    Based on the Heinlein quote date (Space Cadet published 1948) I find iSteve’s military research idea (in particular US WWII era) plausible. But let’s look some more.

    Here is some work looking at intelligence and leadership but not taking into account follower intelligence: http://www.timothy-judge.com/Leader%20IQ–JAP%20published.pdf

    This paper from Dean Simonton (see libgen) looks very relevant: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-14442-001

    Intelligence and Personal Influence in Groups:

    Four models are progressively developed that provide a conceptual basis for a curvilinear relation between intelligence and an individual’s influence over other group members. Model 1, by assuming that influence is a function of percentile placement in intelligence, predicts that beyond an IQ of about 120 intelligence bears anegligible connection with influence. Model 2 adds the consideration of the degree of comprehension by potential followers, yieldinga nonmonotonic function with a predicted peak IQ of about 108 (or a 0.5 SD above the mean). Model 3 incorporates the criticism factor that acknowledges a group member’s vulnerability to intellectual superiors, and thereby predicts a second nonmonotonic function with an optimal IQ of about 119 (or 1.2 SD above the mean). Model 4 expands on the fact that the mean group IQ varies across different groups and, consequently, predicts a high correlation between the group mean IQ and the IQ of its most influential member—but with a leader-follower gap of between 8 and 20 points (depending on the submodel).

    The paper also has some historical discussion including:

    Thus, McCuen (1929) surmised that “in a democratic society the leader must not be too far detached from the group” (p. 95).

    One issue with McCuen’s work is he was looking at leaders at Stanford (so range restriction). I was unable to find a link to his work, but it is referenced in many places.

    There is much additional detail in the Simonton paper. Figure 3 caught my eye. It estimates the expected proportion of followers as a function of intelligence for Model 3. The peak is at 119 which is quite close to my estimate of 115 as the IQ where the “problem” is least visible.

    Also see this FKA Max comment which mentions that 1985 Simonton paper and links a more recent one: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1820124

    This 74 page US Army document has some relevant information including: http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA126852

    Hollingworth (1926) reported that leaders are likely to be more intelligent than those they lead. His investigations of IQ indicated that in groups averaging an IQ of 100, the leader falls in the 115-130 IQ range. In addition, persons with higher IQ’s, namely 160, have greater difficulty leading a group whose average IQ is 100. A leader having an IQ of 160 increases the probability that his/her communication (verbal proficiency) will not be comprehended with a lower achieving group. But, a person of such high calibre is more likely to experience success leading higher, achieving groups averaging an IQ of 130 or better.

    Therefore, in the leadership selection process, a candidates’ IQ score should be considered prior to actual selection. To experience cost effective, productive leadership, the potential leader’s IQ score would be slightly above the mean score of the group s/he is to lead.

    Stogdill (1948) noted that extreme discrepancies of intelligence between leaders and followers work against the exercise. Supporting that finding, and those of Holllngworth (1926) and McCuen (1929), Ghselll (1963) discovered that persons attaining both high and low IQ scores are less likely to acquire success in leadership (management) roles than those with IQ scores at an intermediate level.

    Hollingworth (1926) is not properly referenced in that paper but appears to be her book Gifted Children. This page and the following have the most relevant bit (note this refers to children! I find it surprising that the army paper elided this detail): https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008033394;view=1up;seq=156

    In observing who are the popular leaders in various groups of children, it appears to the present writer that the intelligence of the leader is related in a fairly predictable manner, other traits being favorable, to the intelligence of the led. Among children with a mean IQ of 100, the IQ of the leader is likely to fall between 115 and 130 IQ. That is, the leader is likely too ‘much more intelligent, than the average of the group led. If there is in an ordinary group of children a child of about their own mean age, relatively large, handsome, amiable, courageous, generous, and strong, and of IQ between 115 and 130, such a child is likely to be a leader (due regard being had to social attitudes governing leadership as related to sex). Above 130 IQ, however, the chances of leadership among a group such as described, appear to decrease till, beyond IQ of 160, a child has very little chance of being a popular leader. In a group with a mean at 130 a child of IQ as high as 160 may well lead, for Such a group gives allegiance to a degree of insight above that which wins the average group, other traits being favorable.

    P.S. Santoculto (and others), if you haven’t seen Simonton’s books on creativity you might want to take a look. Here is one example: https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Genius-Darwinian-Perspectives-Creativity/dp/0195128796
    Dr. Thompson makes a number of Simonton references in his blog (and comments), but I did not see the creativity books explicitly mentioned. I think a quoted aside in this one is worth repeating here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/asians-bright-but-not-curious/

    analyses by Simonton (1998, 2009) have found that more original thinkers are moderately high in aspects of psychopathic personality, such as low Conscientiousness and low Agreeableness, which they combine with very high intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Yes, i think Einsenck already talk about it, that highly creative people tend to score higher on psychoticism. Well, psychopaths and sociopaths tends to be very creative on their predatory or parasitic strategies. I like to think that highly creative have resonant psychological traits, too sensitive in mostly every psychological dimensions, namely those on artistic/cultural-existential-symbolic vibe.

    Omniverted, instead true ambiverted. True ambiverted is likely to be too emotionally stable. Omniverted [absurdly speculative] may be just like ambiverted [''enhaced emotional stability''] but with paradoxically higher emotional sensitivity. Don't confuse or conflates ''emotional instability'' with ''emotional sensitivity''. One necessarily is not the same thing.

    In my case i'm very emotionally sensitive and no doubt i can emulate a true emotionally instable person but i'm not emotionally instable, originally speaking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @reiner Tor

    I’ve been told my ability to read and understand is rather good.
     
    On an anonymous forum or comment thread anybody can write or boast about anything, but it's useless to boast about one's own ability to read and understand. People can draw their own conclusions based on one's commenting history anyway.

    On an anonymous forum or comment thread anybody can write or boast about anything, but it’s useless to boast about one’s own ability to read and understand. People can draw their own conclusions based on one’s commenting history anyway.

    LOL. People may draw their own conclusions based on current air temperature and humidity, for all the difference it makes.

    I keep saying “This is my experience, my opinion”, and people keep insisting that I document my expertise and my infallibility, plus links to my theories and proofs.

    It cracks me up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I didn't write a word about the worth of your opinion or expertise. I merely noted that boasting about something which could readily be observed here (your reading comprehension is certainly in this category) is a useless exercise. If others are in agreement with you, then it's superfluous, otherwise it's futile.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. res says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    You have spent a fair amount of time here asserting your HR experience and expertise. Given that, I think it is relevant to ask what sort of industry and positions you were hiring for.
     
    You are gearing up to something deprecatory, so that you may achieve a personally-realized sense of ascendancy with regard to my statements of experience and opinion.

    I have no interest in providing you with any details of my employment history, even should you decide -- selflessly, of course -- to provide your own. I am not the slightest bit interested in proving anything to you. This is a forum for comments, and you may take them at face value, or not at all.

    I have provided sufficient information about my background in other comments in this blog. I think my question was relevant for the reason I explicitly stated. That you refuse to answer speaks volumes.

    To repeat the reason:

    There is a big difference between hiring professors (as Wizard of Oz has done) and hiring broom pushers. What proportion of your hires were working in positions that you think might benefit from a higher than average college grad IQ?

    P.S. Given your vaguely going on about your background (an obvious assertion of authority IMHO) above I find your initial sentence more than a little bit funny. Thanks for the chuckle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I have provided sufficient information about my background in other comments in this blog. I think my question was relevant for the reason I explicitly stated. That you refuse to answer speaks volumes.
     
    Oh, I answered. Several times. However, by all means, provide your name, address and phone number. I'll call and tell you everything you need to know.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Even women advantage in humanities is questionable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  172. @John Jeremiah Smith

    On an anonymous forum or comment thread anybody can write or boast about anything, but it’s useless to boast about one’s own ability to read and understand. People can draw their own conclusions based on one’s commenting history anyway.
     
    LOL. People may draw their own conclusions based on current air temperature and humidity, for all the difference it makes.

    I keep saying "This is my experience, my opinion", and people keep insisting that I document my expertise and my infallibility, plus links to my theories and proofs.

    It cracks me up.

    I didn’t write a word about the worth of your opinion or expertise. I merely noted that boasting about something which could readily be observed here (your reading comprehension is certainly in this category) is a useless exercise. If others are in agreement with you, then it’s superfluous, otherwise it’s futile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I didn’t write a word about the worth of your opinion or expertise. I merely noted that boasting about something which could readily be observed here (your reading comprehension is certainly in this category) is a useless exercise. If others are in agreement with you, then it’s superfluous, otherwise it’s futile.
     
    That's pure bullshit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @res
    I have provided sufficient information about my background in other comments in this blog. I think my question was relevant for the reason I explicitly stated. That you refuse to answer speaks volumes.

    To repeat the reason:


    There is a big difference between hiring professors (as Wizard of Oz has done) and hiring broom pushers. What proportion of your hires were working in positions that you think might benefit from a higher than average college grad IQ?
     
    P.S. Given your vaguely going on about your background (an obvious assertion of authority IMHO) above I find your initial sentence more than a little bit funny. Thanks for the chuckle.

    I have provided sufficient information about my background in other comments in this blog. I think my question was relevant for the reason I explicitly stated. That you refuse to answer speaks volumes.

    Oh, I answered. Several times. However, by all means, provide your name, address and phone number. I’ll call and tell you everything you need to know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Oh, I answered. Several times. However, by all means, provide your name, address and phone number. I’ll call and tell you everything you need to know.
     
    Interesting. A very odd thing to say given your earlier statement:

    I have no interest in providing you with any details of my employment history, even should you decide -- selflessly, of course -- to provide your own. I am not the slightest bit interested in proving anything to you. This is a forum for comments, and you may take them at face value, or not at all.
     
    Thanks for being clear about how little substance there is backing up your various unsupported assertions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @reiner Tor
    I didn't write a word about the worth of your opinion or expertise. I merely noted that boasting about something which could readily be observed here (your reading comprehension is certainly in this category) is a useless exercise. If others are in agreement with you, then it's superfluous, otherwise it's futile.

    I didn’t write a word about the worth of your opinion or expertise. I merely noted that boasting about something which could readily be observed here (your reading comprehension is certainly in this category) is a useless exercise. If others are in agreement with you, then it’s superfluous, otherwise it’s futile.

    That’s pure bullshit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @res

    I tried to identify the resaerch behind this claim and I failed
     
    Based on the Heinlein quote date (Space Cadet published 1948) I find iSteve's military research idea (in particular US WWII era) plausible. But let's look some more.

    Here is some work looking at intelligence and leadership but not taking into account follower intelligence: http://www.timothy-judge.com/Leader%20IQ--JAP%20published.pdf

    This paper from Dean Simonton (see libgen) looks very relevant: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-14442-001


    Intelligence and Personal Influence in Groups:

    Four models are progressively developed that provide a conceptual basis for a curvilinear relation between intelligence and an individual's influence over other group members. Model 1, by assuming that influence is a function of percentile placement in intelligence, predicts that beyond an IQ of about 120 intelligence bears anegligible connection with influence. Model 2 adds the consideration of the degree of comprehension by potential followers, yieldinga nonmonotonic function with a predicted peak IQ of about 108 (or a 0.5 SD above the mean). Model 3 incorporates the criticism factor that acknowledges a group member's vulnerability to intellectual superiors, and thereby predicts a second nonmonotonic function with an optimal IQ of about 119 (or 1.2 SD above the mean). Model 4 expands on the fact that the mean group IQ varies across different groups and, consequently, predicts a high correlation between the group mean IQ and the IQ of its most influential member—but with a leader-follower gap of between 8 and 20 points (depending on the submodel).
     

    The paper also has some historical discussion including:

    Thus, McCuen (1929) surmised that "in a democratic society the leader must not be too far detached from the group" (p. 95).

     

    One issue with McCuen's work is he was looking at leaders at Stanford (so range restriction). I was unable to find a link to his work, but it is referenced in many places.

    There is much additional detail in the Simonton paper. Figure 3 caught my eye. It estimates the expected proportion of followers as a function of intelligence for Model 3. The peak is at 119 which is quite close to my estimate of 115 as the IQ where the "problem" is least visible.

    Also see this FKA Max comment which mentions that 1985 Simonton paper and links a more recent one: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1820124

    This 74 page US Army document has some relevant information including: www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA126852

    Hollingworth (1926) reported that leaders are likely to be more intelligent than those they lead. His investigations of IQ indicated that in groups averaging an IQ of 100, the leader falls in the 115-130 IQ range. In addition, persons with higher IQ's, namely 160, have greater difficulty leading a group whose average IQ is 100. A leader having an IQ of 160 increases the probability that his/her communication (verbal proficiency) will not be comprehended with a lower achieving group. But, a person of such high calibre is more likely to experience success leading higher, achieving groups averaging an IQ of 130 or better.
    ...
    Therefore, in the leadership selection process, a candidates' IQ score should be considered prior to actual selection. To experience cost effective, productive leadership, the potential leader's IQ score would be slightly above the mean score of the group s/he is to lead.
    ...
    Stogdill (1948) noted that extreme discrepancies of intelligence between leaders and followers work against the exercise. Supporting that finding, and those of Holllngworth (1926) and McCuen (1929), Ghselll (1963) discovered that persons attaining both high and low IQ scores are less likely to acquire success in leadership (management) roles than those with IQ scores at an intermediate level.

     

    Hollingworth (1926) is not properly referenced in that paper but appears to be her book Gifted Children. This page and the following have the most relevant bit (note this refers to children! I find it surprising that the army paper elided this detail): https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008033394;view=1up;seq=156

    In observing who are the popular leaders in various groups of children, it appears to the present writer that the intelligence of the leader is related in a fairly predictable manner, other traits being favorable, to the intelligence of the led. Among children with a mean IQ of 100, the IQ of the leader is likely to fall between 115 and 130 IQ. That is, the leader is likely too ‘much more intelligent, than the average of the group led. If there is in an ordinary group of children a child of about their own mean age, relatively large, handsome, amiable, courageous, generous, and strong, and of IQ between 115 and 130, such a child is likely to be a leader (due regard being had to social attitudes governing leadership as related to sex). Above 130 IQ, however, the chances of leadership among a group such as described, appear to decrease till, beyond IQ of 160, a child has very little chance of being a popular leader. In a group with a mean at 130 a child of IQ as high as 160 may well lead, for Such a group gives allegiance to a degree of insight above that which wins the average group, other traits being favorable.
     
    P.S. Santoculto (and others), if you haven't seen Simonton's books on creativity you might want to take a look. Here is one example: https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Genius-Darwinian-Perspectives-Creativity/dp/0195128796
    Dr. Thompson makes a number of Simonton references in his blog (and comments), but I did not see the creativity books explicitly mentioned. I think a quoted aside in this one is worth repeating here: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/asians-bright-but-not-curious/

    analyses by Simonton (1998, 2009) have found that more original thinkers are moderately high in aspects of psychopathic personality, such as low Conscientiousness and low Agreeableness, which they combine with very high intelligence.
     

    Yes, i think Einsenck already talk about it, that highly creative people tend to score higher on psychoticism. Well, psychopaths and sociopaths tends to be very creative on their predatory or parasitic strategies. I like to think that highly creative have resonant psychological traits, too sensitive in mostly every psychological dimensions, namely those on artistic/cultural-existential-symbolic vibe.

    Omniverted, instead true ambiverted. True ambiverted is likely to be too emotionally stable. Omniverted [absurdly speculative] may be just like ambiverted [''enhaced emotional stability''] but with paradoxically higher emotional sensitivity. Don’t confuse or conflates ”emotional instability” with ”emotional sensitivity”. One necessarily is not the same thing.

    In my case i’m very emotionally sensitive and no doubt i can emulate a true emotionally instable person but i’m not emotionally instable, originally speaking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. res says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    I have provided sufficient information about my background in other comments in this blog. I think my question was relevant for the reason I explicitly stated. That you refuse to answer speaks volumes.
     
    Oh, I answered. Several times. However, by all means, provide your name, address and phone number. I'll call and tell you everything you need to know.

    Oh, I answered. Several times. However, by all means, provide your name, address and phone number. I’ll call and tell you everything you need to know.

    Interesting. A very odd thing to say given your earlier statement:

    I have no interest in providing you with any details of my employment history, even should you decide — selflessly, of course — to provide your own. I am not the slightest bit interested in proving anything to you. This is a forum for comments, and you may take them at face value, or not at all.

    Thanks for being clear about how little substance there is backing up your various unsupported assertions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    You guys with Shorthorn Syndrome crack me up. Your feelings of inadequacy have brought you to what? A do-or-die defense of the absurd importance to you of the notion that 7-hundredths of a point on a test (of rather dubious merit) means your ego is protected from those icky, icky girls. And you will go to ANY lengths to ensure that woefully meaningless statistic. You will lie, cheat, insult, deceive, dissemble and shriek with outrage.

    Madre de Dios, you are pathetic. And blocked, too. Bye now, little boy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @res

    Oh, I answered. Several times. However, by all means, provide your name, address and phone number. I’ll call and tell you everything you need to know.
     
    Interesting. A very odd thing to say given your earlier statement:

    I have no interest in providing you with any details of my employment history, even should you decide -- selflessly, of course -- to provide your own. I am not the slightest bit interested in proving anything to you. This is a forum for comments, and you may take them at face value, or not at all.
     
    Thanks for being clear about how little substance there is backing up your various unsupported assertions.

    You guys with Shorthorn Syndrome crack me up. Your feelings of inadequacy have brought you to what? A do-or-die defense of the absurd importance to you of the notion that 7-hundredths of a point on a test (of rather dubious merit) means your ego is protected from those icky, icky girls. And you will go to ANY lengths to ensure that woefully meaningless statistic. You will lie, cheat, insult, deceive, dissemble and shriek with outrage.

    Madre de Dios, you are pathetic. And blocked, too. Bye now, little boy.

    Read More
    • Troll: szopen
    • Replies: @res
    Ad hominems – best way ever to say to someone arguing with you – “you win.”
    , @reiner Tor

    the notion that 7-hundredths of a point on a test
     
    What does that tell you about your reading comprehension? No one wrote here that a difference of 0.07 points was meaningful.

    Of course it's always possible that you are merely being disingenuous.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. res says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith
    You guys with Shorthorn Syndrome crack me up. Your feelings of inadequacy have brought you to what? A do-or-die defense of the absurd importance to you of the notion that 7-hundredths of a point on a test (of rather dubious merit) means your ego is protected from those icky, icky girls. And you will go to ANY lengths to ensure that woefully meaningless statistic. You will lie, cheat, insult, deceive, dissemble and shriek with outrage.

    Madre de Dios, you are pathetic. And blocked, too. Bye now, little boy.

    Ad hominems – best way ever to say to someone arguing with you – “you win.”

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. anon says: • Disclaimer

    “I can only assume that a plumber with an IQ of 160 would have preference over a physicist with IQ of 159, for a position as lecturer on nuclear physics? By golly, sounds like a hell of a plan! Let’s get started!”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind

    “Leonard Susskind (born 1940)[2][3] is an American physicist, who is professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University, and director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics. … He began working as a plumber at the age of 16

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  180. @John Jeremiah Smith
    You guys with Shorthorn Syndrome crack me up. Your feelings of inadequacy have brought you to what? A do-or-die defense of the absurd importance to you of the notion that 7-hundredths of a point on a test (of rather dubious merit) means your ego is protected from those icky, icky girls. And you will go to ANY lengths to ensure that woefully meaningless statistic. You will lie, cheat, insult, deceive, dissemble and shriek with outrage.

    Madre de Dios, you are pathetic. And blocked, too. Bye now, little boy.

    the notion that 7-hundredths of a point on a test

    What does that tell you about your reading comprehension? No one wrote here that a difference of 0.07 points was meaningful.

    Of course it’s always possible that you are merely being disingenuous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    What does that tell you about your reading comprehension? No one wrote here that a difference of 0.07 points was meaningful.
     
    Yes, they did. Not you, true. However, your ad hominem inanities will be Ignored. It's nothing personal - have a nice life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @James Thompson
    Thanks. I think that this field is very well covered by Hassabis.
    His teams are way, way ahead on these sorts of issues. I would see what they are up to first, because unless one recruits the best players one could waste time.

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/artificial-general-intelligence-von

    You may find some interest in this ABC Health Report interview if only as indicating the likelihood that environment in a broad enough sense to include ude of technology and methods of teaching may affect the hardware or maybe firmware of our neural networks. Is that an extravagant interpretation? And I wonder how it relates to the Flynn Effect.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/childhood-literacy/9031078#transcript

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    If she has some studies to look at then that would be fine. You may have seen some of my earlier postings on reading
    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/dyslexia-dilemmas-are-your-shortcomings
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Wizard of Oz
    You may find some interest in this ABC Health Report interview if only as indicating the likelihood that environment in a broad enough sense to include ude of technology and methods of teaching may affect the hardware or maybe firmware of our neural networks. Is that an extravagant interpretation? And I wonder how it relates to the Flynn Effect.

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/childhood-literacy/9031078#transcript

    If she has some studies to look at then that would be fine. You may have seen some of my earlier postings on reading

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/dyslexia-dilemmas-are-your-shortcomings

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @reiner Tor

    the notion that 7-hundredths of a point on a test
     
    What does that tell you about your reading comprehension? No one wrote here that a difference of 0.07 points was meaningful.

    Of course it's always possible that you are merely being disingenuous.

    What does that tell you about your reading comprehension? No one wrote here that a difference of 0.07 points was meaningful.

    Yes, they did. Not you, true. However, your ad hominem inanities will be Ignored. It’s nothing personal – have a nice life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen
    Out of curiosity, who did?

    In comment 57 prof Lynn (as quoted by Thompson) answered a question about Camarata and Woodcock study, and had not said whether _this_ difference (found by Camarata and Woodcock) is meaningful or not. Lynn has found 4 IQ points (almost 1/3 SD, so it's quite large difference) and this is a difference we are discussing about.
    , @reiner Tor
    You will be missed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. res says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Following up the thoughts I have had and expressed about the unmeasured interface factor in assessing the performance advantages afforded by a very high IQ I think this is a related idea that I am willing to back with money.

    Consistently with programming computers successfully to play Chess or Go it would clearly be possible to program them to do the full battery of IQ tests. But it's not that simple procedure that I propose. What is needed is a hardware + software that attempts to model the human brain's processes and then is turned loose on the battery of IQ tests.

    Even with Model 1.1.1 it will be possible to start tweaking a little here and a little thete to see what effect the changes make on tests of varying g weighting.

    Maybe it shouĺd be started with an all software model and no non standard neural-systems simulating parts as a Proof of Concept.

    I could find money for such a project. Give me an address for yourself or get Ron to put you in touch with me.

    Does it have any theoretical fatal flaw or might it be useful?

    Consistently with programming computers successfully to play Chess or Go it would clearly be possible to program them to do the full battery of IQ tests. But it’s not that simple procedure that I propose. What is needed is a hardware + software that attempts to model the human brain’s processes and then is turned loose on the battery of IQ tests.

    This popular article discusses (and provides a link to) a recent paper discussing the “IQ” of AIs: https://boingboing.net/2017/10/10/study-measuring-iq-of-various.html
    Study measuring IQ of various AI puts Google’s at 47.28

    If anyone looks at the paper, does it look like they switched grades 1 and 2 in Table 3 or am I misreading it?

    They currently rate Google’s AI as grade 4 with the defining characteristic of grade 5 over 4 being non-zero C which represents knowledge and information innovation and creation. Grade 6 is essentially an intelligence singularity ; )

    The first reference from that paper has more details on the 2014 version of their test: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050914005389

    In a related note there is a new documentary on AlphaGo: http://www.businessinsider.com/alphago-documentary-provides-a-rare-look-inside-deepmind-2017-10
    It is showing in London today and tomorrow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks for comment and links. As I intended to say to JT in answer (sort of) to his link on dyslexia and maybe will succeed in doing I wonder what can be learned about the brain from finding that some people's high or average scores on some highly g laden tests are coupled with very low scores on other g laden tests totally unlike the normal person or the standard model. It would be interesting to know if images of the brain could be shown to point to the means of workaround of some high IQ or just very capable intelligent people with e.g. poor working memory or dyslexia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    What does that tell you about your reading comprehension? No one wrote here that a difference of 0.07 points was meaningful.
     
    Yes, they did. Not you, true. However, your ad hominem inanities will be Ignored. It's nothing personal - have a nice life.

    Out of curiosity, who did?

    In comment 57 prof Lynn (as quoted by Thompson) answered a question about Camarata and Woodcock study, and had not said whether _this_ difference (found by Camarata and Woodcock) is meaningful or not. Lynn has found 4 IQ points (almost 1/3 SD, so it’s quite large difference) and this is a difference we are discussing about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Was intending to take this up (Camarata and Woodcock) in a subsequent post on a number of criticisms of the Lynn paper. The effect size is not that big, more like 0.15 but complicated by some under-sampling of men.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    Lynn has found 4 IQ points (almost 1/3 SD, so it’s quite large difference) and this is a difference we are discussing about.
     
    Meh. Been there, seen that. I can guarantee, without the slightest worry of contradiction, that you -- that no one -- could work with two people having 4 points IQ difference, for months or years, and notice any difference in mental ability as defined by "IQ".

    Which is the only real point to any of this (and I do appreciate that some portion of Mr. Thompson's income derives from the perpetuation of the argument itself, conclusive or not). If a substantially synthetic "test" for some defined "intelligence" (and definitions are absolutely critical to IQ-science) consistently shows a 0.07 point differential between males and females, or for that matter, 4 points, what difference does it make?

    How is civilization affected? What changes will implement? Who's going to make those changes, and how are they going to accomplish them? Do you seriously believe Congress is going to state officially that "Chicks are stupid"? Therefore, females will be banned from all supervisory and management roles, throughout industry and government?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @John Jeremiah Smith

    What does that tell you about your reading comprehension? No one wrote here that a difference of 0.07 points was meaningful.
     
    Yes, they did. Not you, true. However, your ad hominem inanities will be Ignored. It's nothing personal - have a nice life.

    You will be missed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @szopen
    Out of curiosity, who did?

    In comment 57 prof Lynn (as quoted by Thompson) answered a question about Camarata and Woodcock study, and had not said whether _this_ difference (found by Camarata and Woodcock) is meaningful or not. Lynn has found 4 IQ points (almost 1/3 SD, so it's quite large difference) and this is a difference we are discussing about.

    Was intending to take this up (Camarata and Woodcock) in a subsequent post on a number of criticisms of the Lynn paper. The effect size is not that big, more like 0.15 but complicated by some under-sampling of men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @szopen
    Out of curiosity, who did?

    In comment 57 prof Lynn (as quoted by Thompson) answered a question about Camarata and Woodcock study, and had not said whether _this_ difference (found by Camarata and Woodcock) is meaningful or not. Lynn has found 4 IQ points (almost 1/3 SD, so it's quite large difference) and this is a difference we are discussing about.

    Lynn has found 4 IQ points (almost 1/3 SD, so it’s quite large difference) and this is a difference we are discussing about.

    Meh. Been there, seen that. I can guarantee, without the slightest worry of contradiction, that you — that no one — could work with two people having 4 points IQ difference, for months or years, and notice any difference in mental ability as defined by “IQ”.

    Which is the only real point to any of this (and I do appreciate that some portion of Mr. Thompson’s income derives from the perpetuation of the argument itself, conclusive or not). If a substantially synthetic “test” for some defined “intelligence” (and definitions are absolutely critical to IQ-science) consistently shows a 0.07 point differential between males and females, or for that matter, 4 points, what difference does it make?

    How is civilization affected? What changes will implement? Who’s going to make those changes, and how are they going to accomplish them? Do you seriously believe Congress is going to state officially that “Chicks are stupid”? Therefore, females will be banned from all supervisory and management roles, throughout industry and government?

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen

    If a substantially synthetic “test” for some defined “intelligence” (and definitions are absolutely critical to IQ-science) consistently shows a 0.07 point differential between males and females, or for that matter, 4 points, what difference does it make?
     
    As I have already written two times above in the same thread (both times replying to you),
    0.07 nothing. 4 IQ points means that if IQ measures intelligence, men would tend be overrepresented on the top, and therefore trying to impose strict 50/50 representation of men and women is misguided. The difference at the tail is staggering: depending on assumptions, we can guess that close to 2/3 of people with IQ over 130 would be men.


    Do you seriously believe Congress is going to state officially that “Chicks are stupid”? Therefore, females will be banned from all supervisory and management roles, throughout industry and government?
     
    Right now I assume that you are either acting in bad faith, or have serious reading comprehension issues. Stop building a strawman. Try to discuss with real opponents and attacking real arguments instead of imaginary ones.

    Have a nice life. I won't reply to you anymore.

    , @utu
    Keep it up. Do not back off. You need to double down when dealing with the IQ Komsomol activists.
    , @AP

    I can guarantee, without the slightest worry of contradiction, that you — that no one — could work with two people having 4 points IQ difference, for months or years, and notice any difference in mental ability as defined by “IQ”.
     
    Correct. But this isn't why that difference, if it truly exists (I am not completely convinced), is important.

    How is civilization affected? What changes will implement? Who’s going to make those changes, and how are they going to accomplish them?
     
    As others have pointed out, an average 4 point difference results in significant discrepancies at the higher ends, such that, for example, at an IQ level of 130 2/3 of people are males but only 1/3 are females. So, if the 4 point average difference exists, certain occupations requiring high enough intelligence to obtain such scores will have more males than females due to natural reasons, rather than some kind of discrimination. Knowing this and taking it into account could affect policies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Lynn has found 4 IQ points (almost 1/3 SD, so it’s quite large difference) and this is a difference we are discussing about.
     
    Meh. Been there, seen that. I can guarantee, without the slightest worry of contradiction, that you -- that no one -- could work with two people having 4 points IQ difference, for months or years, and notice any difference in mental ability as defined by "IQ".

    Which is the only real point to any of this (and I do appreciate that some portion of Mr. Thompson's income derives from the perpetuation of the argument itself, conclusive or not). If a substantially synthetic "test" for some defined "intelligence" (and definitions are absolutely critical to IQ-science) consistently shows a 0.07 point differential between males and females, or for that matter, 4 points, what difference does it make?

    How is civilization affected? What changes will implement? Who's going to make those changes, and how are they going to accomplish them? Do you seriously believe Congress is going to state officially that "Chicks are stupid"? Therefore, females will be banned from all supervisory and management roles, throughout industry and government?

    If a substantially synthetic “test” for some defined “intelligence” (and definitions are absolutely critical to IQ-science) consistently shows a 0.07 point differential between males and females, or for that matter, 4 points, what difference does it make?

    As I have already written two times above in the same thread (both times replying to you),
    0.07 nothing. 4 IQ points means that if IQ measures intelligence, men would tend be overrepresented on the top, and therefore trying to impose strict 50/50 representation of men and women is misguided. The difference at the tail is staggering: depending on assumptions, we can guess that close to 2/3 of people with IQ over 130 would be men.

    Do you seriously believe Congress is going to state officially that “Chicks are stupid”? Therefore, females will be banned from all supervisory and management roles, throughout industry and government?

    Right now I assume that you are either acting in bad faith, or have serious reading comprehension issues. Stop building a strawman. Try to discuss with real opponents and attacking real arguments instead of imaginary ones.

    Have a nice life. I won’t reply to you anymore.

    Read More
    • Agree: res, Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Right now I assume that you are either acting in bad faith, or have serious reading comprehension issues. Stop building a strawman. Try to discuss with real opponents and attacking real arguments instead of imaginary ones.

    Have a nice life. I won’t reply to you anymore.
     
    Strawman? LOL. That's not a strawman. Seriously, with all this "broads are dumb" scientific, um, research findings, what are you going to DO with it? What? Anything? It's pure "angels dancing on the head of a pin" stuff.

    I'm comfortable with you not replying. You do seem to have some reasonable amount of sense on other topics, so I will provide the occasional reply. Just ignore it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Lynn has found 4 IQ points (almost 1/3 SD, so it’s quite large difference) and this is a difference we are discussing about.
     
    Meh. Been there, seen that. I can guarantee, without the slightest worry of contradiction, that you -- that no one -- could work with two people having 4 points IQ difference, for months or years, and notice any difference in mental ability as defined by "IQ".

    Which is the only real point to any of this (and I do appreciate that some portion of Mr. Thompson's income derives from the perpetuation of the argument itself, conclusive or not). If a substantially synthetic "test" for some defined "intelligence" (and definitions are absolutely critical to IQ-science) consistently shows a 0.07 point differential between males and females, or for that matter, 4 points, what difference does it make?

    How is civilization affected? What changes will implement? Who's going to make those changes, and how are they going to accomplish them? Do you seriously believe Congress is going to state officially that "Chicks are stupid"? Therefore, females will be banned from all supervisory and management roles, throughout industry and government?

    Keep it up. Do not back off. You need to double down when dealing with the IQ Komsomol activists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    Keep it up. Do not back off. You need to double down when dealing with the IQ Komsomol activists.
     
    Double down? Naaaa ... that would be like playing tackle football against the girls' lacrosse team.

    I admit that I can get to laughing so hard at the "Chicks be dumb" crowd that I can barely type.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. AP says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Lynn has found 4 IQ points (almost 1/3 SD, so it’s quite large difference) and this is a difference we are discussing about.
     
    Meh. Been there, seen that. I can guarantee, without the slightest worry of contradiction, that you -- that no one -- could work with two people having 4 points IQ difference, for months or years, and notice any difference in mental ability as defined by "IQ".

    Which is the only real point to any of this (and I do appreciate that some portion of Mr. Thompson's income derives from the perpetuation of the argument itself, conclusive or not). If a substantially synthetic "test" for some defined "intelligence" (and definitions are absolutely critical to IQ-science) consistently shows a 0.07 point differential between males and females, or for that matter, 4 points, what difference does it make?

    How is civilization affected? What changes will implement? Who's going to make those changes, and how are they going to accomplish them? Do you seriously believe Congress is going to state officially that "Chicks are stupid"? Therefore, females will be banned from all supervisory and management roles, throughout industry and government?

    I can guarantee, without the slightest worry of contradiction, that you — that no one — could work with two people having 4 points IQ difference, for months or years, and notice any difference in mental ability as defined by “IQ”.

    Correct. But this isn’t why that difference, if it truly exists (I am not completely convinced), is important.

    How is civilization affected? What changes will implement? Who’s going to make those changes, and how are they going to accomplish them?

    As others have pointed out, an average 4 point difference results in significant discrepancies at the higher ends, such that, for example, at an IQ level of 130 2/3 of people are males but only 1/3 are females. So, if the 4 point average difference exists, certain occupations requiring high enough intelligence to obtain such scores will have more males than females due to natural reasons, rather than some kind of discrimination. Knowing this and taking it into account could affect policies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    discrepancies at the higher ends, such that, for example, at an IQ level of 130 2/3 of people are males but only 1/3 are females

    Yes, you can make such calculations but how valid they are? What is the uncertainty of standard deviations for both male and female population and how well they approximate normal distribution? To estimate the standard deviation requires much much larger sample than to estimate the mean of population.

    , @reiner Tor
    Actually, for a large enough sample, even 4 points of difference could be significant in and of itself. Assuming that the difference is significant (i.e. not measurement error), we could expect the 102 IQ group (consisting of people with exactly 102 IQ) to perform better than the 98 IQ group (consisting of people with exactly 98 IQ points). The difference wouldn't be large, but with a large enough sample, it would show up. You won't be able to notice it with just two people, one 98 and another 102 (quite often the 98 IQ person would actually perform better at work), but the random variations would cancel each other out with a large enough sample, and the 102 IQ group would be better. Mind you, the difference wouldn't be very large, something like a few percentage points (or even just a few tenth of a percentage point) difference in income, a little higher chance of a promotion, a little higher chance of getting to college (it'd be very low for both groups, but a little higher for the 102 group), or something similar.

    But yes, the true significance is at the tails.

    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    So, if the 4 point average difference exists, certain occupations requiring high enough intelligence to obtain such scores will have more males than females due to natural reasons, rather than some kind of discrimination. Knowing this and taking it into account could affect policies.
     
    It is perhaps true that, assuming any truth to the theory of male/female IQ differential, and proof that makes a flipping iota of difference in real life, the human race has managed, nevertheless, to behave with unpredictable social and cultural traits for 50,000 years, sans knowledge of this horrific discrepancy. And survived, more's the wonderment.

    So ... could affect policies? Do you mean "should"? In view of recent events, may I ask what you believe is the likelihood that anybody, anywhere, in any position of authority or responsibility, is going to effect such "policies"?
    , @CanSpeccy

    an average 4 point difference results in significant discrepancies at the higher ends
     
    Except that "discrepancies at the higher end" don't seem to mean a damn thing. Or if they do, then someone needs to explain why Terman, in selecting high IQ individuals for his long- term study of achievement among those of high IQ managed to exclude the only two future Nobel prize winners (in physics no less) among the candidates. And they need to explain why no other study has demonstrated the value of IQ in identifying those who will do something more intellectually remarkable than become a highly paid accountant, lawyer or proctologist.

    Essentially, IQism is about dismissing what a person can actually do and instead setting up a system of promotion and rewards in accordance with the results of some Micky Mouse test which supposedly indicates what a person ought to be able to do if they could be bothered and happened to have the imagination to do it.

    The end result is an education system that doesn't teach anything effectively because it doesn't matter what you know, all that matters is what you could do if you knew how to do it and could be bothered to do it. Hence SAT-test entry to the top universities. No wonder American civilization is sluicing down the drain at an ever accelerating pace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. utu says:
    @AP

    I can guarantee, without the slightest worry of contradiction, that you — that no one — could work with two people having 4 points IQ difference, for months or years, and notice any difference in mental ability as defined by “IQ”.
     
    Correct. But this isn't why that difference, if it truly exists (I am not completely convinced), is important.

    How is civilization affected? What changes will implement? Who’s going to make those changes, and how are they going to accomplish them?
     
    As others have pointed out, an average 4 point difference results in significant discrepancies at the higher ends, such that, for example, at an IQ level of 130 2/3 of people are males but only 1/3 are females. So, if the 4 point average difference exists, certain occupations requiring high enough intelligence to obtain such scores will have more males than females due to natural reasons, rather than some kind of discrimination. Knowing this and taking it into account could affect policies.

    discrepancies at the higher ends, such that, for example, at an IQ level of 130 2/3 of people are males but only 1/3 are females

    Yes, you can make such calculations but how valid they are? What is the uncertainty of standard deviations for both male and female population and how well they approximate normal distribution? To estimate the standard deviation requires much much larger sample than to estimate the mean of population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    As we all know, for genetic reasons variation must be higher for males.
    , @John Jeremiah Smith

    To estimate the standard deviation requires much much larger sample than to estimate the mean of population.
     
    Well, if properly done, yes. Of course, one can fall back on the statistics of small samples, and wing it from there. One problem with that approach is that this male/female fuss is just a nod to the misogynist wing -- the real effort remains focused on "nigga be dumb", "mexie be dumb", etc., while waiving the problematic "asian not be dumb".

    What happens when IQ testing of Asian females shows them to average 4 points higher than Asian males, therefore 8 points higher than Caucasian males? Or, heck, they turn out to be 4 points below Asian males, therefor 4 points higher than Caucasian males?

    Ewwwww.
    , @szopen
    That's a valid point; I don't know. What I do know that it seems that men are really more variable on a lot of different traits, including such trivial things such as heigh, meaning standard deviations for men and women on IQ could be different too and, indeed, I have read some studies which have found out exactly that. We also have studies on REALLY large samples (80.000 children in Scottland, for example, meaning almost all children born in that particular cohort) - which show no difference in average IQ (but remember - measured at 11, when Lynn proposes that boys develop slower and hence the supposed male advantage would not be visible already at eleven), but a significant difference in variance (and some deviation from the normal distribution, too).

    You can also see quite large sample for Romania (15.000 people) at our hosts' blog here:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/no-sex-differences-in-romania/

    In fact, I am much more inclined to believe in "greater variability in males" than in "males' mean is 4 points higher". The support for the former seems to me much stronger than for the latter; as one researcher points out, the seemingly higher male advantage at older age might be as well result of attrition (i.e. more males with lower scores who stop to be tested).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @szopen

    If a substantially synthetic “test” for some defined “intelligence” (and definitions are absolutely critical to IQ-science) consistently shows a 0.07 point differential between males and females, or for that matter, 4 points, what difference does it make?
     
    As I have already written two times above in the same thread (both times replying to you),
    0.07 nothing. 4 IQ points means that if IQ measures intelligence, men would tend be overrepresented on the top, and therefore trying to impose strict 50/50 representation of men and women is misguided. The difference at the tail is staggering: depending on assumptions, we can guess that close to 2/3 of people with IQ over 130 would be men.


    Do you seriously believe Congress is going to state officially that “Chicks are stupid”? Therefore, females will be banned from all supervisory and management roles, throughout industry and government?
     
    Right now I assume that you are either acting in bad faith, or have serious reading comprehension issues. Stop building a strawman. Try to discuss with real opponents and attacking real arguments instead of imaginary ones.

    Have a nice life. I won't reply to you anymore.

    Right now I assume that you are either acting in bad faith, or have serious reading comprehension issues. Stop building a strawman. Try to discuss with real opponents and attacking real arguments instead of imaginary ones.

    Have a nice life. I won’t reply to you anymore.

    Strawman? LOL. That’s not a strawman. Seriously, with all this “broads are dumb” scientific, um, research findings, what are you going to DO with it? What? Anything? It’s pure “angels dancing on the head of a pin” stuff.

    I’m comfortable with you not replying. You do seem to have some reasonable amount of sense on other topics, so I will provide the occasional reply. Just ignore it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @utu
    Keep it up. Do not back off. You need to double down when dealing with the IQ Komsomol activists.

    Keep it up. Do not back off. You need to double down when dealing with the IQ Komsomol activists.

    Double down? Naaaa … that would be like playing tackle football against the girls’ lacrosse team.

    I admit that I can get to laughing so hard at the “Chicks be dumb” crowd that I can barely type.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @AP

    I can guarantee, without the slightest worry of contradiction, that you — that no one — could work with two people having 4 points IQ difference, for months or years, and notice any difference in mental ability as defined by “IQ”.
     
    Correct. But this isn't why that difference, if it truly exists (I am not completely convinced), is important.

    How is civilization affected? What changes will implement? Who’s going to make those changes, and how are they going to accomplish them?
     
    As others have pointed out, an average 4 point difference results in significant discrepancies at the higher ends, such that, for example, at an IQ level of 130 2/3 of people are males but only 1/3 are females. So, if the 4 point average difference exists, certain occupations requiring high enough intelligence to obtain such scores will have more males than females due to natural reasons, rather than some kind of discrimination. Knowing this and taking it into account could affect policies.

    Actually, for a large enough sample, even 4 points of difference could be significant in and of itself. Assuming that the difference is significant (i.e. not measurement error), we could expect the 102 IQ group (consisting of people with exactly 102 IQ) to perform better than the 98 IQ group (consisting of people with exactly 98 IQ points). The difference wouldn’t be large, but with a large enough sample, it would show up. You won’t be able to notice it with just two people, one 98 and another 102 (quite often the 98 IQ person would actually perform better at work), but the random variations would cancel each other out with a large enough sample, and the 102 IQ group would be better. Mind you, the difference wouldn’t be very large, something like a few percentage points (or even just a few tenth of a percentage point) difference in income, a little higher chance of a promotion, a little higher chance of getting to college (it’d be very low for both groups, but a little higher for the 102 group), or something similar.

    But yes, the true significance is at the tails.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    quite often the 98 IQ person

    I frequently see phrases like "x IQ person" on these pages. In my opinion it is a sloppiness of thought at best or abuse of language at worst. The animal called "x IQ person" has no ontic reality. You have to postulate it. But you can't even measure it. The uncertainty of IQ tests is way too high to say that this person is x or y IQ. At best you could say that a given person achieved the following x IQ score on the such and such test administered on June 17, 1989. Specifying the date is important because a test administered year later will be by ∆x different where ∆x can be quite large. Actually from the test-retest correlation of 0.9 ∆x has about 6IQ points standard deviation.

    The usage of the phrase like "x IQ person" is example of reification and stepping outside the boundaries of legitimate ontic framework. It gives away people who have been either manipulated into the belief of the IQ cult endeavor or people who are in the process of doing the manipulation others.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @AP

    I can guarantee, without the slightest worry of contradiction, that you — that no one — could work with two people having 4 points IQ difference, for months or years, and notice any difference in mental ability as defined by “IQ”.
     
    Correct. But this isn't why that difference, if it truly exists (I am not completely convinced), is important.

    How is civilization affected? What changes will implement? Who’s going to make those changes, and how are they going to accomplish them?
     
    As others have pointed out, an average 4 point difference results in significant discrepancies at the higher ends, such that, for example, at an IQ level of 130 2/3 of people are males but only 1/3 are females. So, if the 4 point average difference exists, certain occupations requiring high enough intelligence to obtain such scores will have more males than females due to natural reasons, rather than some kind of discrimination. Knowing this and taking it into account could affect policies.

    So, if the 4 point average difference exists, certain occupations requiring high enough intelligence to obtain such scores will have more males than females due to natural reasons, rather than some kind of discrimination. Knowing this and taking it into account could affect policies.

    It is perhaps true that, assuming any truth to the theory of male/female IQ differential, and proof that makes a flipping iota of difference in real life, the human race has managed, nevertheless, to behave with unpredictable social and cultural traits for 50,000 years, sans knowledge of this horrific discrepancy. And survived, more’s the wonderment.

    So … could affect policies? Do you mean “should”? In view of recent events, may I ask what you believe is the likelihood that anybody, anywhere, in any position of authority or responsibility, is going to effect such “policies”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    the human race has managed, nevertheless, to behave with unpredictable social and cultural traits for 50,000 years, sans knowledge of this horrific discrepancy
     
    That's quite false. Until the advent of feminism, most humans - both men and women - were quite in possession of the knowledge that there were far more men than women with outstanding abilities, or ones capable of leadership positions, etc. Actually, if anything, people probably underestimated women's abilities throughout history.
    , @AP

    So … could affect policies? Do you mean “should”? In view of recent events, may I ask what you believe is the likelihood that anybody, anywhere, in any position of authority or responsibility, is going to effect such “policies”?
     
    Well, if it becomes very clear that 2/3 of people with IQs above 130 are males and 1/3 are females, the situation in which, say, 2/3 of Ph.D.-level physicists are males will not be understood to reflect discrimination, hiring biases, etc. Accordingly, policies geared towards overcoming biases or discrimination would not be implemented, because there would no longer be a reason to assume that the biases or discrimination are responsible for the discrepancy.

    The chances of that happening, of course, are not high, but they aren't zero. At any rate, it would be good to know what is going on, don't you think?

    Of course, this doesn't seem to have been proven definitively yet.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @utu
    discrepancies at the higher ends, such that, for example, at an IQ level of 130 2/3 of people are males but only 1/3 are females

    Yes, you can make such calculations but how valid they are? What is the uncertainty of standard deviations for both male and female population and how well they approximate normal distribution? To estimate the standard deviation requires much much larger sample than to estimate the mean of population.

    As we all know, for genetic reasons variation must be higher for males.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    You meant variance not variation. But I do not see why should we know the variance should be higher for men. If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @utu
    discrepancies at the higher ends, such that, for example, at an IQ level of 130 2/3 of people are males but only 1/3 are females

    Yes, you can make such calculations but how valid they are? What is the uncertainty of standard deviations for both male and female population and how well they approximate normal distribution? To estimate the standard deviation requires much much larger sample than to estimate the mean of population.

    To estimate the standard deviation requires much much larger sample than to estimate the mean of population.

    Well, if properly done, yes. Of course, one can fall back on the statistics of small samples, and wing it from there. One problem with that approach is that this male/female fuss is just a nod to the misogynist wing — the real effort remains focused on “nigga be dumb”, “mexie be dumb”, etc., while waiving the problematic “asian not be dumb”.

    What happens when IQ testing of Asian females shows them to average 4 points higher than Asian males, therefore 8 points higher than Caucasian males? Or, heck, they turn out to be 4 points below Asian males, therefor 4 points higher than Caucasian males?

    Ewwwww.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Or, heck, they turn out to be 4 points below Asian males, therefor 4 points higher than Caucasian males?
     
    East Asians are perhaps 5 points higher than Caucasians. So, if Asian females are 4 points below Asian males, just as the difference is between Caucasian males and females, then Asian females would be just 1 point above Caucasian males on average.
    , @utu
    I am with you on some points but I do not like you. Too much hubris. All hat not cattle. If you could tone down your real or feigned self satisfaction and adoration of yourself perhaps you could spare some energy on making effective arguments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. utu says:
    @reiner Tor
    As we all know, for genetic reasons variation must be higher for males.

    You meant variance not variation. But I do not see why should we know the variance should be higher for men. If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Yes, variance. Your thinking on the XX chromosomes is wrong, however.
    , @res

    If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.
     
    You say things like that with such confidence (and comment 208, oy vey). You might consider checking out this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation
    The basic idea is one X chromosome is silenced in each female cell. The net result is a kind of averaging.

    Also worth considering the genetics of color blindness.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @John Jeremiah Smith

    So, if the 4 point average difference exists, certain occupations requiring high enough intelligence to obtain such scores will have more males than females due to natural reasons, rather than some kind of discrimination. Knowing this and taking it into account could affect policies.
     
    It is perhaps true that, assuming any truth to the theory of male/female IQ differential, and proof that makes a flipping iota of difference in real life, the human race has managed, nevertheless, to behave with unpredictable social and cultural traits for 50,000 years, sans knowledge of this horrific discrepancy. And survived, more's the wonderment.

    So ... could affect policies? Do you mean "should"? In view of recent events, may I ask what you believe is the likelihood that anybody, anywhere, in any position of authority or responsibility, is going to effect such "policies"?

    the human race has managed, nevertheless, to behave with unpredictable social and cultural traits for 50,000 years, sans knowledge of this horrific discrepancy

    That’s quite false. Until the advent of feminism, most humans – both men and women – were quite in possession of the knowledge that there were far more men than women with outstanding abilities, or ones capable of leadership positions, etc. Actually, if anything, people probably underestimated women’s abilities throughout history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @John Jeremiah Smith

    To estimate the standard deviation requires much much larger sample than to estimate the mean of population.
     
    Well, if properly done, yes. Of course, one can fall back on the statistics of small samples, and wing it from there. One problem with that approach is that this male/female fuss is just a nod to the misogynist wing -- the real effort remains focused on "nigga be dumb", "mexie be dumb", etc., while waiving the problematic "asian not be dumb".

    What happens when IQ testing of Asian females shows them to average 4 points higher than Asian males, therefore 8 points higher than Caucasian males? Or, heck, they turn out to be 4 points below Asian males, therefor 4 points higher than Caucasian males?

    Ewwwww.

    Or, heck, they turn out to be 4 points below Asian males, therefor 4 points higher than Caucasian males?

    East Asians are perhaps 5 points higher than Caucasians. So, if Asian females are 4 points below Asian males, just as the difference is between Caucasian males and females, then Asian females would be just 1 point above Caucasian males on average.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. szopen says:
    @utu
    discrepancies at the higher ends, such that, for example, at an IQ level of 130 2/3 of people are males but only 1/3 are females

    Yes, you can make such calculations but how valid they are? What is the uncertainty of standard deviations for both male and female population and how well they approximate normal distribution? To estimate the standard deviation requires much much larger sample than to estimate the mean of population.

    That’s a valid point; I don’t know. What I do know that it seems that men are really more variable on a lot of different traits, including such trivial things such as heigh, meaning standard deviations for men and women on IQ could be different too and, indeed, I have read some studies which have found out exactly that. We also have studies on REALLY large samples (80.000 children in Scottland, for example, meaning almost all children born in that particular cohort) – which show no difference in average IQ (but remember – measured at 11, when Lynn proposes that boys develop slower and hence the supposed male advantage would not be visible already at eleven), but a significant difference in variance (and some deviation from the normal distribution, too).

    You can also see quite large sample for Romania (15.000 people) at our hosts’ blog here:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/no-sex-differences-in-romania/

    In fact, I am much more inclined to believe in “greater variability in males” than in “males’ mean is 4 points higher”. The support for the former seems to me much stronger than for the latter; as one researcher points out, the seemingly higher male advantage at older age might be as well result of attrition (i.e. more males with lower scores who stop to be tested).

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    including such trivial things such as heigh

    Men are taller on avg so then std.dev. is expected to be larger when you think of it. The growing process is more akin to scaling which is multiplicative not additive. But if the relative std.dev./avg is still larger for men then the explanation would be more complex.

    80.000 children in Scotland or Romania (15.000 people)

    Seems like large enough samples to make decent histograms to establish how men and women distribution are different. Was it done? The estimate of std.dev. for small samples is very sensitive to few "outliers" so w/o seeing solid histograms the stories about large differences between man-woman standard deviations are not very credible.

    One Einstein here claims that the fact (if it is a fact) that the SD is larger for men than women can trivially be explained by XY vs. XY. check him out.

    measured at 11, when Lynn proposes that boys develop slower

    The issue of IQ for different age groups is worth looking at because it reveals some hidden assumptions or rather shenanigans in the IQ cult. IQ's for different age groups are made to be the same ex definitione. It is a postulate not an empirical fact. For example the same Raven matrices can be applied for different age groups but they are scaled differently for each age group. Where do the differences in scaling come from? From the postulate to make the average IQ and Std.Dev. the same for each age group. So when you hear, as we often do, that IQ is stable and does not change with age this is one of the reasons. Then when the same people do estimates of heritability that supposedly changes from 20% in c childhood to as high as 80% in adulthood they do not realize that they contradict their claim that IQ is stable. Twin's IQs must converge form childhood to adulthood to account form 20% to 80% change. The same people will claim that IQ in childhood is a very good predictor of outcomes in adulthood forgetting that this runs into the inconvenient result of varying heritability. One could unpack lots of these claims and why they were made or publicized. You advocate the head start program then will hit you that with heritability studies. You want to advocate some more egalitarian society they will hit you with IQ stability. There are always ulterior motives of political origins. So when Thompson here popularizes publication of Lynn what one should make of it? First ask about political expediency. These people integrity is rubber made though their prejudices are casted of iron. Some guy got fired by Google, right? So here comes the Ulster Institute crew to the rescue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. utu says:
    @reiner Tor
    Actually, for a large enough sample, even 4 points of difference could be significant in and of itself. Assuming that the difference is significant (i.e. not measurement error), we could expect the 102 IQ group (consisting of people with exactly 102 IQ) to perform better than the 98 IQ group (consisting of people with exactly 98 IQ points). The difference wouldn't be large, but with a large enough sample, it would show up. You won't be able to notice it with just two people, one 98 and another 102 (quite often the 98 IQ person would actually perform better at work), but the random variations would cancel each other out with a large enough sample, and the 102 IQ group would be better. Mind you, the difference wouldn't be very large, something like a few percentage points (or even just a few tenth of a percentage point) difference in income, a little higher chance of a promotion, a little higher chance of getting to college (it'd be very low for both groups, but a little higher for the 102 group), or something similar.

    But yes, the true significance is at the tails.

    quite often the 98 IQ person

    I frequently see phrases like “x IQ person” on these pages. In my opinion it is a sloppiness of thought at best or abuse of language at worst. The animal called “x IQ person” has no ontic reality. You have to postulate it. But you can’t even measure it. The uncertainty of IQ tests is way too high to say that this person is x or y IQ. At best you could say that a given person achieved the following x IQ score on the such and such test administered on June 17, 1989. Specifying the date is important because a test administered year later will be by ∆x different where ∆x can be quite large. Actually from the test-retest correlation of 0.9 ∆x has about 6IQ points standard deviation.

    The usage of the phrase like “x IQ person” is example of reification and stepping outside the boundaries of legitimate ontic framework. It gives away people who have been either manipulated into the belief of the IQ cult endeavor or people who are in the process of doing the manipulation others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I already explicitly said that I'm assuming no measurement error. Of course, you cannot measure IQ with such certainty for just one person, at least it'd be quite difficult.

    However, with large samples, you can measure quite accurately, because random measurement errors should cancel each other out. And as I said, it'd be of some significance even if there was no variance.
    , @reiner Tor

    The animal called “x IQ person” has no ontic reality.
     
    Assuming the IQ tests do indeed measure something, which we casually call IQ, it has. Perhaps we cannot accurately enough measure it.
    , @Santoculto
    IQ is a overall resumé of something people tend to be [cognitively] constant throughout their lifes.

    For example, if you always was/are good on verbal stuff/vocabulary, so verbal IQ test will likely to show your verbal dexterity.

    Don't forget sub-tests.

    It's explain why many people with lower verbal skills tend to have some words which always is written in ''incorrect ways' [incorrect based on conventional form].

    We even can describe IQ as ''cognitive quantitative constancy''.
    , @reiner Tor
    By the way, IQ is not the only thing which might change over time. For example height, a remarkably stable number, can also change over the years. Most people stop growing somewhere between ages 15 and 20 (usually before age 18), but some people's height (e.g. yours truly - my height increased roughly 1 cm somewhere between ages 24 and 32) might slightly increase later (in my case, probably due to doing sports and getting a better posture). It also usually (but not in a uniform manner) decreases in old age, at least for many people. It also varies according to time of day (like most people are shorter late in the evening than they are early in the morning), so you cannot measure it in a totally exact manner (or at least it's quite difficult), but nevertheless in Europe we're comfortable with notions such as "174 cm tall people" and "175 cm tall people", even though there are people who would be measured 174 in the morning and 175 in the evening. We also understand that someone who was taller at age 20 will continue to be taller at age 65 (though there might be some individual variation, especially if the numbers are close, with some people decreasing in height, while others not, or not so much). It's also easy to understand that there could be some small measurement errors (1 cm is certainly not impossible). But it's not reasonable to throw out the concept of height (or of "174 cm tall people") just because there might be some ambiguous cases.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    To estimate the standard deviation requires much much larger sample than to estimate the mean of population.
     
    Well, if properly done, yes. Of course, one can fall back on the statistics of small samples, and wing it from there. One problem with that approach is that this male/female fuss is just a nod to the misogynist wing -- the real effort remains focused on "nigga be dumb", "mexie be dumb", etc., while waiving the problematic "asian not be dumb".

    What happens when IQ testing of Asian females shows them to average 4 points higher than Asian males, therefore 8 points higher than Caucasian males? Or, heck, they turn out to be 4 points below Asian males, therefor 4 points higher than Caucasian males?

    Ewwwww.

    I am with you on some points but I do not like you. Too much hubris. All hat not cattle. If you could tone down your real or feigned self satisfaction and adoration of yourself perhaps you could spare some energy on making effective arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith

    I am with you on some points but I do not like you. Too much hubris. All hat not cattle. If you could tone down your real or feigned self satisfaction and adoration of yourself perhaps you could spare some energy on making effective arguments.
     
    "Like"? That's quite alright with me. As you know from past experience, I don't like you, either. Liking is so prep school. No thanks.

    As for effective arguments and IQ mysticism ... WHAT effective arguments? Have you seen an IQ-devotee concede an effective argument, ever? I have not.

    The simple facts of the matter are: IQ tests MAY have merit. IF they have merit, WHAT is to be done with the results? Can that be done, i.e. can such "logical" and presumably legal actions subsequently prescribed be enacted?

    Well? Can they? Hell, no. Can you, under any conceivable set of future circumstances envision a world where females, negroes and latins are excluded from positions of power and responsibility because some dubious test suggests they are by nature inferior? Hell fucking NO!

    Can IQ comparative cross-race, cross-gender research be continued? Sure. Do you want to pay for it? I don't. A non-profit center, perhaps? Great idea. Shucks, it's gotta be worth at least as much as collections of multicolored lumpy rocks that are held up as art-artifacts from antiquity. People will pay for damn near anything. But not me, and not my taxes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @utu
    You meant variance not variation. But I do not see why should we know the variance should be higher for men. If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.

    Yes, variance. Your thinking on the XX chromosomes is wrong, however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @utu
    quite often the 98 IQ person

    I frequently see phrases like "x IQ person" on these pages. In my opinion it is a sloppiness of thought at best or abuse of language at worst. The animal called "x IQ person" has no ontic reality. You have to postulate it. But you can't even measure it. The uncertainty of IQ tests is way too high to say that this person is x or y IQ. At best you could say that a given person achieved the following x IQ score on the such and such test administered on June 17, 1989. Specifying the date is important because a test administered year later will be by ∆x different where ∆x can be quite large. Actually from the test-retest correlation of 0.9 ∆x has about 6IQ points standard deviation.

    The usage of the phrase like "x IQ person" is example of reification and stepping outside the boundaries of legitimate ontic framework. It gives away people who have been either manipulated into the belief of the IQ cult endeavor or people who are in the process of doing the manipulation others.

    I already explicitly said that I’m assuming no measurement error. Of course, you cannot measure IQ with such certainty for just one person, at least it’d be quite difficult.

    However, with large samples, you can measure quite accurately, because random measurement errors should cancel each other out. And as I said, it’d be of some significance even if there was no variance.

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

    Your thinking on the XX chromosomes is wrong, however.

    Thank you for acknowledging that I am thinking but I am sorry but I can’t reciprocate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  208. @utu
    quite often the 98 IQ person

    I frequently see phrases like "x IQ person" on these pages. In my opinion it is a sloppiness of thought at best or abuse of language at worst. The animal called "x IQ person" has no ontic reality. You have to postulate it. But you can't even measure it. The uncertainty of IQ tests is way too high to say that this person is x or y IQ. At best you could say that a given person achieved the following x IQ score on the such and such test administered on June 17, 1989. Specifying the date is important because a test administered year later will be by ∆x different where ∆x can be quite large. Actually from the test-retest correlation of 0.9 ∆x has about 6IQ points standard deviation.

    The usage of the phrase like "x IQ person" is example of reification and stepping outside the boundaries of legitimate ontic framework. It gives away people who have been either manipulated into the belief of the IQ cult endeavor or people who are in the process of doing the manipulation others.

    The animal called “x IQ person” has no ontic reality.

    Assuming the IQ tests do indeed measure something, which we casually call IQ, it has. Perhaps we cannot accurately enough measure it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @utu
    I am with you on some points but I do not like you. Too much hubris. All hat not cattle. If you could tone down your real or feigned self satisfaction and adoration of yourself perhaps you could spare some energy on making effective arguments.

    I am with you on some points but I do not like you. Too much hubris. All hat not cattle. If you could tone down your real or feigned self satisfaction and adoration of yourself perhaps you could spare some energy on making effective arguments.

    “Like”? That’s quite alright with me. As you know from past experience, I don’t like you, either. Liking is so prep school. No thanks.

    As for effective arguments and IQ mysticism … WHAT effective arguments? Have you seen an IQ-devotee concede an effective argument, ever? I have not.

    The simple facts of the matter are: IQ tests MAY have merit. IF they have merit, WHAT is to be done with the results? Can that be done, i.e. can such “logical” and presumably legal actions subsequently prescribed be enacted?

    Well? Can they? Hell, no. Can you, under any conceivable set of future circumstances envision a world where females, negroes and latins are excluded from positions of power and responsibility because some dubious test suggests they are by nature inferior? Hell fucking NO!

    Can IQ comparative cross-race, cross-gender research be continued? Sure. Do you want to pay for it? I don’t. A non-profit center, perhaps? Great idea. Shucks, it’s gotta be worth at least as much as collections of multicolored lumpy rocks that are held up as art-artifacts from antiquity. People will pay for damn near anything. But not me, and not my taxes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. utu says:
    @szopen
    That's a valid point; I don't know. What I do know that it seems that men are really more variable on a lot of different traits, including such trivial things such as heigh, meaning standard deviations for men and women on IQ could be different too and, indeed, I have read some studies which have found out exactly that. We also have studies on REALLY large samples (80.000 children in Scottland, for example, meaning almost all children born in that particular cohort) - which show no difference in average IQ (but remember - measured at 11, when Lynn proposes that boys develop slower and hence the supposed male advantage would not be visible already at eleven), but a significant difference in variance (and some deviation from the normal distribution, too).

    You can also see quite large sample for Romania (15.000 people) at our hosts' blog here:

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/no-sex-differences-in-romania/

    In fact, I am much more inclined to believe in "greater variability in males" than in "males' mean is 4 points higher". The support for the former seems to me much stronger than for the latter; as one researcher points out, the seemingly higher male advantage at older age might be as well result of attrition (i.e. more males with lower scores who stop to be tested).

    including such trivial things such as heigh

    Men are taller on avg so then std.dev. is expected to be larger when you think of it. The growing process is more akin to scaling which is multiplicative not additive. But if the relative std.dev./avg is still larger for men then the explanation would be more complex.

    80.000 children in Scotland or Romania (15.000 people)

    Seems like large enough samples to make decent histograms to establish how men and women distribution are different. Was it done? The estimate of std.dev. for small samples is very sensitive to few “outliers” so w/o seeing solid histograms the stories about large differences between man-woman standard deviations are not very credible.

    One Einstein here claims that the fact (if it is a fact) that the SD is larger for men than women can trivially be explained by XY vs. XY. check him out.

    measured at 11, when Lynn proposes that boys develop slower

    The issue of IQ for different age groups is worth looking at because it reveals some hidden assumptions or rather shenanigans in the IQ cult. IQ’s for different age groups are made to be the same ex definitione. It is a postulate not an empirical fact. For example the same Raven matrices can be applied for different age groups but they are scaled differently for each age group. Where do the differences in scaling come from? From the postulate to make the average IQ and Std.Dev. the same for each age group. So when you hear, as we often do, that IQ is stable and does not change with age this is one of the reasons. Then when the same people do estimates of heritability that supposedly changes from 20% in c childhood to as high as 80% in adulthood they do not realize that they contradict their claim that IQ is stable. Twin’s IQs must converge form childhood to adulthood to account form 20% to 80% change. The same people will claim that IQ in childhood is a very good predictor of outcomes in adulthood forgetting that this runs into the inconvenient result of varying heritability. One could unpack lots of these claims and why they were made or publicized. You advocate the head start program then will hit you that with heritability studies. You want to advocate some more egalitarian society they will hit you with IQ stability. There are always ulterior motives of political origins. So when Thompson here popularizes publication of Lynn what one should make of it? First ask about political expediency. These people integrity is rubber made though their prejudices are casted of iron. Some guy got fired by Google, right? So here comes the Ulster Institute crew to the rescue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @utu
    quite often the 98 IQ person

    I frequently see phrases like "x IQ person" on these pages. In my opinion it is a sloppiness of thought at best or abuse of language at worst. The animal called "x IQ person" has no ontic reality. You have to postulate it. But you can't even measure it. The uncertainty of IQ tests is way too high to say that this person is x or y IQ. At best you could say that a given person achieved the following x IQ score on the such and such test administered on June 17, 1989. Specifying the date is important because a test administered year later will be by ∆x different where ∆x can be quite large. Actually from the test-retest correlation of 0.9 ∆x has about 6IQ points standard deviation.

    The usage of the phrase like "x IQ person" is example of reification and stepping outside the boundaries of legitimate ontic framework. It gives away people who have been either manipulated into the belief of the IQ cult endeavor or people who are in the process of doing the manipulation others.

    IQ is a overall resumé of something people tend to be [cognitively] constant throughout their lifes.

    For example, if you always was/are good on verbal stuff/vocabulary, so verbal IQ test will likely to show your verbal dexterity.

    Don’t forget sub-tests.

    It’s explain why many people with lower verbal skills tend to have some words which always is written in ”incorrect ways’ [incorrect based on conventional form].

    We even can describe IQ as ”cognitive quantitative constancy”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Oh, dear, censorship. Tsk, tsk, Mr. Thompson, tsk, tsk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  213. res says:
    @utu
    You meant variance not variation. But I do not see why should we know the variance should be higher for men. If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.

    If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.

    You say things like that with such confidence (and comment 208, oy vey). You might consider checking out this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation
    The basic idea is one X chromosome is silenced in each female cell. The net result is a kind of averaging.

    Also worth considering the genetics of color blindness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.
     
    Since utu has more than doubled down on this idea let's look into it some more.

    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/Turner1996.pdf

    The male with his single X chromosome is, therefore, likely to be more affected by either advantageous genes on the X chromosome or by deleterious mutational events, which may explain the difference in distribution of IQ between the sexes.

     

    I hope it is obvious how that would increase variation (and variance, thus the SD) for men.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201109/the-incredible-expanding-adventures-the-x-chromosome

    The fact that males have only a single X, uniquely derived from the mother, has further implications for variations in intelligence. Look at it this way: If you are the son of a highly intelligent mother and if there is indeed a major X chromosome contribution to IQ, you will express your one and only maternal X chromosome without dilution by the second X chromosome that a female would inherit. The effects cut both ways: If you are a male with a damaged IQ-linked gene on your X, you are going to suffer its effects much more obviously than a female, who can express the equivalent, undamaged gene from her second X chromosome. This in itself likely explains why there are more males than females with very high and very low IQs: males' single X chromosome increases variance in IQ, simply because there is not a second, compensatory X chromosome.
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26161735


    ABSTRACT—There is substantial evidence that males are more variable than females in general intelligence. In recent years, researchers have presented this as a reason that, although there is little, if any, mean sex difference in general intelligence, males tend to be overrepresented at both ends of its overall distribution. Part of the explanation could be the presence of genes on the X chromosome related both to syndromal disorders involving mental retardation and to population variation in general intelligence occurring normally. Genes on the X chromosome appear overrepresented among genes with known involvement in mental retardation, which is consistent with a model we developed of the population distribution of general intelligence as a mixture of two normal distributions. Using this model, we explored the expected ratios of males to females at various points in the distribution and estimated the proportion of variance in general intelligence potentially due to genes on the X chromosome. These estimates provide clues to the extent to which biologically based sex differences could be manifested in the environment as sex differences in displayed intellectual abilities. We discuss these observations in the context of sex differences in specific cognitive abilities and evolutionary theories of sexual selection.
     
    They have an extended discussion which is probably worth a look for anyone interested in this.

    Notice the calculation for red-green colorblindness. Males have 10x the variance of females and 20x the prevalence.

    Here are some numbers for observed differences in intelligence variance (ratios of 1.13 and 1.19).

    The Strand et al. (2006) sample was assessed using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT; Lohman et al., 2001). The test measures verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning domains, thus roughly paralleling the areas of specific cognitive abilities that have generally been considered most fundamental (e.g., Johnson & Bouchard, 2005; Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996; Snow & Lohman, 1989; Vernon, 1964; but the nonverbal tests specifically avoid spatial mental rotation problems). Each domain is assessed by three different tests. Mean scores are calculated for each domain and overall. As in the Scottish Medical Surveys, overall CAT variability was greater in males than in females; the male–female variance ratio was 1.13 and was identical to that found in SMS32. The variance ratio in SMS47 was slightly larger: 1.19. The male–female tail proportion ratios in the top and bottom 5% and 10% of the distributions were similar to those in the Scottish Medical Surveys as well. Table 2 shows this comparison. In both the CATand SMS47 data, the tail proportion ratios at the low end of the general intelligence distribution were greater than those found at the high end. In contrast, the tail proportion ratios in SMS32 were actually greater at the high ends of the general intelligence distributions than at the low ends.
     
    Table 2 gives tail ratios for top/bottom 5/10% for five tests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. res says:
    @res

    If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.
     
    You say things like that with such confidence (and comment 208, oy vey). You might consider checking out this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-inactivation
    The basic idea is one X chromosome is silenced in each female cell. The net result is a kind of averaging.

    Also worth considering the genetics of color blindness.

    If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.

    Since utu has more than doubled down on this idea let’s look into it some more.

    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/Turner1996.pdf

    The male with his single X chromosome is, therefore, likely to be more affected by either advantageous genes on the X chromosome or by deleterious mutational events, which may explain the difference in distribution of IQ between the sexes.

    I hope it is obvious how that would increase variation (and variance, thus the SD) for men.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201109/the-incredible-expanding-adventures-the-x-chromosome

    The fact that males have only a single X, uniquely derived from the mother, has further implications for variations in intelligence. Look at it this way: If you are the son of a highly intelligent mother and if there is indeed a major X chromosome contribution to IQ, you will express your one and only maternal X chromosome without dilution by the second X chromosome that a female would inherit. The effects cut both ways: If you are a male with a damaged IQ-linked gene on your X, you are going to suffer its effects much more obviously than a female, who can express the equivalent, undamaged gene from her second X chromosome. This in itself likely explains why there are more males than females with very high and very low IQs: males’ single X chromosome increases variance in IQ, simply because there is not a second, compensatory X chromosome.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26161735

    ABSTRACT—There is substantial evidence that males are more variable than females in general intelligence. In recent years, researchers have presented this as a reason that, although there is little, if any, mean sex difference in general intelligence, males tend to be overrepresented at both ends of its overall distribution. Part of the explanation could be the presence of genes on the X chromosome related both to syndromal disorders involving mental retardation and to population variation in general intelligence occurring normally. Genes on the X chromosome appear overrepresented among genes with known involvement in mental retardation, which is consistent with a model we developed of the population distribution of general intelligence as a mixture of two normal distributions. Using this model, we explored the expected ratios of males to females at various points in the distribution and estimated the proportion of variance in general intelligence potentially due to genes on the X chromosome. These estimates provide clues to the extent to which biologically based sex differences could be manifested in the environment as sex differences in displayed intellectual abilities. We discuss these observations in the context of sex differences in specific cognitive abilities and evolutionary theories of sexual selection.

    They have an extended discussion which is probably worth a look for anyone interested in this.

    Notice the calculation for red-green colorblindness. Males have 10x the variance of females and 20x the prevalence.

    Here are some numbers for observed differences in intelligence variance (ratios of 1.13 and 1.19).

    The Strand et al. (2006) sample was assessed using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT; Lohman et al., 2001). The test measures verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning domains, thus roughly paralleling the areas of specific cognitive abilities that have generally been considered most fundamental (e.g., Johnson & Bouchard, 2005; Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996; Snow & Lohman, 1989; Vernon, 1964; but the nonverbal tests specifically avoid spatial mental rotation problems). Each domain is assessed by three different tests. Mean scores are calculated for each domain and overall. As in the Scottish Medical Surveys, overall CAT variability was greater in males than in females; the male–female variance ratio was 1.13 and was identical to that found in SMS32. The variance ratio in SMS47 was slightly larger: 1.19. The male–female tail proportion ratios in the top and bottom 5% and 10% of the distributions were similar to those in the Scottish Medical Surveys as well. Table 2 shows this comparison. In both the CATand SMS47 data, the tail proportion ratios at the low end of the general intelligence distribution were greater than those found at the high end. In contrast, the tail proportion ratios in SMS32 were actually greater at the high ends of the general intelligence distributions than at the low ends.

    Table 2 gives tail ratios for top/bottom 5/10% for five tests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    This a bad hill for utu to choose to die on, tbh.
    , @utu
    Thank you for links and info. These are all speculative discussions. Basically hand waving. A typical cases of people with lots of time at their hands and very little specific knowledge who can weave long stories and hypothetical explanations. This only can be settled if some polygenic score (linear or not) predictor functions of IQ along the lines what Hsu is doing are constructed in which there are terms which are missing in men that might have either negative or positive effect but which are so clever that they result in shrinking of the SD in women. If you try to imagine such a function you will realize that this not a trivial matter. If it would be just an additive function it would have form H=M+(W-M), where H,M,W stand for human, man, woman, respectively. Then the SD for men would be larger than for women only if covariance between M and (W-M) would be negative and larger than 1/2 of variance of W-M. Mathematically this is not impossible, I think, but I have problem accepting it. One could try to write down a nonlinear function as well but it is just way too general, too unconstrained problem. This as I would go. But otherwise is just a hand waving. Keep in mind res, that if people write papers in journals with names sounding very important and serious that are edited and reviewed by other people who are just like them who share the same beliefs and have the same interests like social, financial and status it does not preclude a possibility of BS appearing in these journals. Au contraire, it assures that BS will appear in these journals because this is a nudist royal colony, many kings walking naked and assuring each other they have beautiful clothes.
    , @utu
    I looked at Wendy Johnson et al. I have to admit it goes beyond mere hand waving I assumed in the previous comment. It also means that the IQ predictor function à la Hsu must have different form for men and different for women and thus if wrapped into one function it would be nonlinear. Anyway, thanks for the link.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. AP says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    So, if the 4 point average difference exists, certain occupations requiring high enough intelligence to obtain such scores will have more males than females due to natural reasons, rather than some kind of discrimination. Knowing this and taking it into account could affect policies.
     
    It is perhaps true that, assuming any truth to the theory of male/female IQ differential, and proof that makes a flipping iota of difference in real life, the human race has managed, nevertheless, to behave with unpredictable social and cultural traits for 50,000 years, sans knowledge of this horrific discrepancy. And survived, more's the wonderment.

    So ... could affect policies? Do you mean "should"? In view of recent events, may I ask what you believe is the likelihood that anybody, anywhere, in any position of authority or responsibility, is going to effect such "policies"?

    So … could affect policies? Do you mean “should”? In view of recent events, may I ask what you believe is the likelihood that anybody, anywhere, in any position of authority or responsibility, is going to effect such “policies”?

    Well, if it becomes very clear that 2/3 of people with IQs above 130 are males and 1/3 are females, the situation in which, say, 2/3 of Ph.D.-level physicists are males will not be understood to reflect discrimination, hiring biases, etc. Accordingly, policies geared towards overcoming biases or discrimination would not be implemented, because there would no longer be a reason to assume that the biases or discrimination are responsible for the discrepancy.

    The chances of that happening, of course, are not high, but they aren’t zero. At any rate, it would be good to know what is going on, don’t you think?

    Of course, this doesn’t seem to have been proven definitively yet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. The chances of that happening, of course, are not high, but they aren’t zero. At any rate, it would be good to know what is going on, don’t you think?

    A pointless and ultimately frustrating exercise. Knowing what’s true and having to live with what’s false makes for nothing but misery.

    I reiterate: Can you, under any conceivable set of future circumstances envision a world where females, negroes and latins are excluded from positions of power and responsibility because some dubious test suggests they are by nature inferior?

    Of course not. That ship is hull-down on the horizon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Well, for one - China doesn't have a lot of women in government, especially not in higher positions and if it was found that there would be reason not to have more, they would probably be much less motivated to alter this.

    World doesn't end at the shores of the USA, yanno.
    , @AP

    Can you, under any conceivable set of future circumstances envision a world where females, negroes and latins are excluded from positions of power and responsibility because some dubious test suggests they are by nature inferior?
     
    Nobody is claiming that there would be some sort of quota based on the results of such research. That would be immoral and reflect a stupid lack of understanding of what the results mean. But, such research may prevent or limit "affirmative action" policies designed to boost the % of women in certain positions in order to compensate for discrimination, if it is proven that discrimination is not responsible for the lower numbers of women in that field. If it is shown that 2/3 of people with an IQ of 130 or above are men, it doesn't follow that jobs requiring such an IQ will have a legal quota mandating that 2/3 of workers in this field will be men. It will just mean that if, without any intervention, 2/3 happen to be men, nothing ought to be done to change things because we know that this reflects the natural abilities of each sex. If 9/10 happen to be men, the goal of policy interventions might be to get it to 2/3, rather than 50/50.

    (and again, to reiterate, I am not taking the position either way about whether or not Lynn is correct with his 4 point difference claim, but describing the implications if he is correct).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @res

    Consistently with programming computers successfully to play Chess or Go it would clearly be possible to program them to do the full battery of IQ tests. But it’s not that simple procedure that I propose. What is needed is a hardware + software that attempts to model the human brain’s processes and then is turned loose on the battery of IQ tests.
     
    This popular article discusses (and provides a link to) a recent paper discussing the "IQ" of AIs: https://boingboing.net/2017/10/10/study-measuring-iq-of-various.html
    Study measuring IQ of various AI puts Google's at 47.28

    If anyone looks at the paper, does it look like they switched grades 1 and 2 in Table 3 or am I misreading it?

    They currently rate Google's AI as grade 4 with the defining characteristic of grade 5 over 4 being non-zero C which represents knowledge and information innovation and creation. Grade 6 is essentially an intelligence singularity ; )

    The first reference from that paper has more details on the 2014 version of their test: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050914005389

    In a related note there is a new documentary on AlphaGo: http://www.businessinsider.com/alphago-documentary-provides-a-rare-look-inside-deepmind-2017-10
    It is showing in London today and tomorrow.

    Thanks for comment and links. As I intended to say to JT in answer (sort of) to his link on dyslexia and maybe will succeed in doing I wonder what can be learned about the brain from finding that some people’s high or average scores on some highly g laden tests are coupled with very low scores on other g laden tests totally unlike the normal person or the standard model. It would be interesting to know if images of the brain could be shown to point to the means of workaround of some high IQ or just very capable intelligent people with e.g. poor working memory or dyslexia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @res

    If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.
     
    Since utu has more than doubled down on this idea let's look into it some more.

    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/Turner1996.pdf

    The male with his single X chromosome is, therefore, likely to be more affected by either advantageous genes on the X chromosome or by deleterious mutational events, which may explain the difference in distribution of IQ between the sexes.

     

    I hope it is obvious how that would increase variation (and variance, thus the SD) for men.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201109/the-incredible-expanding-adventures-the-x-chromosome

    The fact that males have only a single X, uniquely derived from the mother, has further implications for variations in intelligence. Look at it this way: If you are the son of a highly intelligent mother and if there is indeed a major X chromosome contribution to IQ, you will express your one and only maternal X chromosome without dilution by the second X chromosome that a female would inherit. The effects cut both ways: If you are a male with a damaged IQ-linked gene on your X, you are going to suffer its effects much more obviously than a female, who can express the equivalent, undamaged gene from her second X chromosome. This in itself likely explains why there are more males than females with very high and very low IQs: males' single X chromosome increases variance in IQ, simply because there is not a second, compensatory X chromosome.
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26161735


    ABSTRACT—There is substantial evidence that males are more variable than females in general intelligence. In recent years, researchers have presented this as a reason that, although there is little, if any, mean sex difference in general intelligence, males tend to be overrepresented at both ends of its overall distribution. Part of the explanation could be the presence of genes on the X chromosome related both to syndromal disorders involving mental retardation and to population variation in general intelligence occurring normally. Genes on the X chromosome appear overrepresented among genes with known involvement in mental retardation, which is consistent with a model we developed of the population distribution of general intelligence as a mixture of two normal distributions. Using this model, we explored the expected ratios of males to females at various points in the distribution and estimated the proportion of variance in general intelligence potentially due to genes on the X chromosome. These estimates provide clues to the extent to which biologically based sex differences could be manifested in the environment as sex differences in displayed intellectual abilities. We discuss these observations in the context of sex differences in specific cognitive abilities and evolutionary theories of sexual selection.
     
    They have an extended discussion which is probably worth a look for anyone interested in this.

    Notice the calculation for red-green colorblindness. Males have 10x the variance of females and 20x the prevalence.

    Here are some numbers for observed differences in intelligence variance (ratios of 1.13 and 1.19).

    The Strand et al. (2006) sample was assessed using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT; Lohman et al., 2001). The test measures verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning domains, thus roughly paralleling the areas of specific cognitive abilities that have generally been considered most fundamental (e.g., Johnson & Bouchard, 2005; Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996; Snow & Lohman, 1989; Vernon, 1964; but the nonverbal tests specifically avoid spatial mental rotation problems). Each domain is assessed by three different tests. Mean scores are calculated for each domain and overall. As in the Scottish Medical Surveys, overall CAT variability was greater in males than in females; the male–female variance ratio was 1.13 and was identical to that found in SMS32. The variance ratio in SMS47 was slightly larger: 1.19. The male–female tail proportion ratios in the top and bottom 5% and 10% of the distributions were similar to those in the Scottish Medical Surveys as well. Table 2 shows this comparison. In both the CATand SMS47 data, the tail proportion ratios at the low end of the general intelligence distribution were greater than those found at the high end. In contrast, the tail proportion ratios in SMS32 were actually greater at the high ends of the general intelligence distributions than at the low ends.
     
    Table 2 gives tail ratios for top/bottom 5/10% for five tests.

    This a bad hill for utu to choose to die on, tbh.

    Read More
    • Agree: res
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. @John Jeremiah Smith

    The chances of that happening, of course, are not high, but they aren’t zero. At any rate, it would be good to know what is going on, don’t you think?
     
    A pointless and ultimately frustrating exercise. Knowing what's true and having to live with what's false makes for nothing but misery.

    I reiterate: Can you, under any conceivable set of future circumstances envision a world where females, negroes and latins are excluded from positions of power and responsibility because some dubious test suggests they are by nature inferior?

    Of course not. That ship is hull-down on the horizon.

    Well, for one – China doesn’t have a lot of women in government, especially not in higher positions and if it was found that there would be reason not to have more, they would probably be much less motivated to alter this.

    World doesn’t end at the shores of the USA, yanno.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. AP says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    The chances of that happening, of course, are not high, but they aren’t zero. At any rate, it would be good to know what is going on, don’t you think?
     
    A pointless and ultimately frustrating exercise. Knowing what's true and having to live with what's false makes for nothing but misery.

    I reiterate: Can you, under any conceivable set of future circumstances envision a world where females, negroes and latins are excluded from positions of power and responsibility because some dubious test suggests they are by nature inferior?

    Of course not. That ship is hull-down on the horizon.

    Can you, under any conceivable set of future circumstances envision a world where females, negroes and latins are excluded from positions of power and responsibility because some dubious test suggests they are by nature inferior?

    Nobody is claiming that there would be some sort of quota based on the results of such research. That would be immoral and reflect a stupid lack of understanding of what the results mean. But, such research may prevent or limit “affirmative action” policies designed to boost the % of women in certain positions in order to compensate for discrimination, if it is proven that discrimination is not responsible for the lower numbers of women in that field. If it is shown that 2/3 of people with an IQ of 130 or above are men, it doesn’t follow that jobs requiring such an IQ will have a legal quota mandating that 2/3 of workers in this field will be men. It will just mean that if, without any intervention, 2/3 happen to be men, nothing ought to be done to change things because we know that this reflects the natural abilities of each sex. If 9/10 happen to be men, the goal of policy interventions might be to get it to 2/3, rather than 50/50.

    (and again, to reiterate, I am not taking the position either way about whether or not Lynn is correct with his 4 point difference claim, but describing the implications if he is correct).

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Yes, that is the point. It depends on showing that the data on standard deviations and mean differences between the sexes are correct, and although the first is reasonably well established the second may be less so, but at least there is material which can be debated.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Well, for one – China doesn’t have a lot of women in government, especially not in higher positions and if it was found that there would be reason not to have more, they would probably be much less motivated to alter this.

    Yes, they do. As many at higher levels as the USA, relatively speaking, and proportionately more at lower levels.

    Which is not the point. Do you have any notion of the hay that can be made of reports by “IQ researchers” with respect to denying women equal voice in politics?

    But, it’s okay. I understand. All of that will change when the official word from the Temple of Knowledge establishes conclusively that women are stupid. A brave new era of enlightenment will dawn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    This commenter does not seem to understand the concept of "knowledge for its own sake", nor the fact that in most circumstances knowledge is useful, and that it does always influence decisions. It's always more difficult to push through policies which many people know to be stupid, as opposed to policies which only few people know to be stupid. Similarly, opposition is stronger if the knowledge is clear and beyond dispute than if it's just a vague feeling based on anecdotal evidence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. utu says:
    @res

    If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.
     
    Since utu has more than doubled down on this idea let's look into it some more.

    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/Turner1996.pdf

    The male with his single X chromosome is, therefore, likely to be more affected by either advantageous genes on the X chromosome or by deleterious mutational events, which may explain the difference in distribution of IQ between the sexes.

     

    I hope it is obvious how that would increase variation (and variance, thus the SD) for men.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201109/the-incredible-expanding-adventures-the-x-chromosome

    The fact that males have only a single X, uniquely derived from the mother, has further implications for variations in intelligence. Look at it this way: If you are the son of a highly intelligent mother and if there is indeed a major X chromosome contribution to IQ, you will express your one and only maternal X chromosome without dilution by the second X chromosome that a female would inherit. The effects cut both ways: If you are a male with a damaged IQ-linked gene on your X, you are going to suffer its effects much more obviously than a female, who can express the equivalent, undamaged gene from her second X chromosome. This in itself likely explains why there are more males than females with very high and very low IQs: males' single X chromosome increases variance in IQ, simply because there is not a second, compensatory X chromosome.
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26161735


    ABSTRACT—There is substantial evidence that males are more variable than females in general intelligence. In recent years, researchers have presented this as a reason that, although there is little, if any, mean sex difference in general intelligence, males tend to be overrepresented at both ends of its overall distribution. Part of the explanation could be the presence of genes on the X chromosome related both to syndromal disorders involving mental retardation and to population variation in general intelligence occurring normally. Genes on the X chromosome appear overrepresented among genes with known involvement in mental retardation, which is consistent with a model we developed of the population distribution of general intelligence as a mixture of two normal distributions. Using this model, we explored the expected ratios of males to females at various points in the distribution and estimated the proportion of variance in general intelligence potentially due to genes on the X chromosome. These estimates provide clues to the extent to which biologically based sex differences could be manifested in the environment as sex differences in displayed intellectual abilities. We discuss these observations in the context of sex differences in specific cognitive abilities and evolutionary theories of sexual selection.
     
    They have an extended discussion which is probably worth a look for anyone interested in this.

    Notice the calculation for red-green colorblindness. Males have 10x the variance of females and 20x the prevalence.

    Here are some numbers for observed differences in intelligence variance (ratios of 1.13 and 1.19).

    The Strand et al. (2006) sample was assessed using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT; Lohman et al., 2001). The test measures verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning domains, thus roughly paralleling the areas of specific cognitive abilities that have generally been considered most fundamental (e.g., Johnson & Bouchard, 2005; Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996; Snow & Lohman, 1989; Vernon, 1964; but the nonverbal tests specifically avoid spatial mental rotation problems). Each domain is assessed by three different tests. Mean scores are calculated for each domain and overall. As in the Scottish Medical Surveys, overall CAT variability was greater in males than in females; the male–female variance ratio was 1.13 and was identical to that found in SMS32. The variance ratio in SMS47 was slightly larger: 1.19. The male–female tail proportion ratios in the top and bottom 5% and 10% of the distributions were similar to those in the Scottish Medical Surveys as well. Table 2 shows this comparison. In both the CATand SMS47 data, the tail proportion ratios at the low end of the general intelligence distribution were greater than those found at the high end. In contrast, the tail proportion ratios in SMS32 were actually greater at the high ends of the general intelligence distributions than at the low ends.
     
    Table 2 gives tail ratios for top/bottom 5/10% for five tests.

    Thank you for links and info. These are all speculative discussions. Basically hand waving. A typical cases of people with lots of time at their hands and very little specific knowledge who can weave long stories and hypothetical explanations. This only can be settled if some polygenic score (linear or not) predictor functions of IQ along the lines what Hsu is doing are constructed in which there are terms which are missing in men that might have either negative or positive effect but which are so clever that they result in shrinking of the SD in women. If you try to imagine such a function you will realize that this not a trivial matter. If it would be just an additive function it would have form H=M+(W-M), where H,M,W stand for human, man, woman, respectively. Then the SD for men would be larger than for women only if covariance between M and (W-M) would be negative and larger than 1/2 of variance of W-M. Mathematically this is not impossible, I think, but I have problem accepting it. One could try to write down a nonlinear function as well but it is just way too general, too unconstrained problem. This as I would go. But otherwise is just a hand waving. Keep in mind res, that if people write papers in journals with names sounding very important and serious that are edited and reviewed by other people who are just like them who share the same beliefs and have the same interests like social, financial and status it does not preclude a possibility of BS appearing in these journals. Au contraire, it assures that BS will appear in these journals because this is a nudist royal colony, many kings walking naked and assuring each other they have beautiful clothes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. utu says:
    @res

    If anything women have XX not XY and thus they have more genetic stuff to do the varying than men.
     
    Since utu has more than doubled down on this idea let's look into it some more.

    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/llog/Turner1996.pdf

    The male with his single X chromosome is, therefore, likely to be more affected by either advantageous genes on the X chromosome or by deleterious mutational events, which may explain the difference in distribution of IQ between the sexes.

     

    I hope it is obvious how that would increase variation (and variance, thus the SD) for men.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201109/the-incredible-expanding-adventures-the-x-chromosome

    The fact that males have only a single X, uniquely derived from the mother, has further implications for variations in intelligence. Look at it this way: If you are the son of a highly intelligent mother and if there is indeed a major X chromosome contribution to IQ, you will express your one and only maternal X chromosome without dilution by the second X chromosome that a female would inherit. The effects cut both ways: If you are a male with a damaged IQ-linked gene on your X, you are going to suffer its effects much more obviously than a female, who can express the equivalent, undamaged gene from her second X chromosome. This in itself likely explains why there are more males than females with very high and very low IQs: males' single X chromosome increases variance in IQ, simply because there is not a second, compensatory X chromosome.
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26161735


    ABSTRACT—There is substantial evidence that males are more variable than females in general intelligence. In recent years, researchers have presented this as a reason that, although there is little, if any, mean sex difference in general intelligence, males tend to be overrepresented at both ends of its overall distribution. Part of the explanation could be the presence of genes on the X chromosome related both to syndromal disorders involving mental retardation and to population variation in general intelligence occurring normally. Genes on the X chromosome appear overrepresented among genes with known involvement in mental retardation, which is consistent with a model we developed of the population distribution of general intelligence as a mixture of two normal distributions. Using this model, we explored the expected ratios of males to females at various points in the distribution and estimated the proportion of variance in general intelligence potentially due to genes on the X chromosome. These estimates provide clues to the extent to which biologically based sex differences could be manifested in the environment as sex differences in displayed intellectual abilities. We discuss these observations in the context of sex differences in specific cognitive abilities and evolutionary theories of sexual selection.
     
    They have an extended discussion which is probably worth a look for anyone interested in this.

    Notice the calculation for red-green colorblindness. Males have 10x the variance of females and 20x the prevalence.

    Here are some numbers for observed differences in intelligence variance (ratios of 1.13 and 1.19).

    The Strand et al. (2006) sample was assessed using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CAT; Lohman et al., 2001). The test measures verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal reasoning domains, thus roughly paralleling the areas of specific cognitive abilities that have generally been considered most fundamental (e.g., Johnson & Bouchard, 2005; Snow, Corno, & Jackson, 1996; Snow & Lohman, 1989; Vernon, 1964; but the nonverbal tests specifically avoid spatial mental rotation problems). Each domain is assessed by three different tests. Mean scores are calculated for each domain and overall. As in the Scottish Medical Surveys, overall CAT variability was greater in males than in females; the male–female variance ratio was 1.13 and was identical to that found in SMS32. The variance ratio in SMS47 was slightly larger: 1.19. The male–female tail proportion ratios in the top and bottom 5% and 10% of the distributions were similar to those in the Scottish Medical Surveys as well. Table 2 shows this comparison. In both the CATand SMS47 data, the tail proportion ratios at the low end of the general intelligence distribution were greater than those found at the high end. In contrast, the tail proportion ratios in SMS32 were actually greater at the high ends of the general intelligence distributions than at the low ends.
     
    Table 2 gives tail ratios for top/bottom 5/10% for five tests.

    I looked at Wendy Johnson et al. I have to admit it goes beyond mere hand waving I assumed in the previous comment. It also means that the IQ predictor function à la Hsu must have different form for men and different for women and thus if wrapped into one function it would be nonlinear. Anyway, thanks for the link.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thank you for being open minded enough to take a look and reconsider. You might try reading your comments 223 and 224 in succession and think about what kind of effect comments like 223 have on thoughtful discussion. I had tried to emphasize that the last paper (Johnson, Carothers, Deary 2009) was the best (I gave the links in the order I found them), but I guess my effort was inadequate. It was not a coincidence that I stopped looking for further evidence after finding that paper.

    You make a good point about predictor functions. The Hsu (et al.) predictor assumes additive genetics so it is what it is. Here are some papers discussing the X chromosome in the context of additive genetics:

    Estimating the additive genetic effect of the X chromosome: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3617965/

    Table 1 has some more male/female mean and variance estimates.

    Autosomal and X-Linked Additive Genetic Variation for Lifespan and Aging: Comparisons Within and Between the Sexes in Drosophila melanogaster: http://www.g3journal.org/content/6/12/3903

    Here is the abstract:


    Theory makes several predictions concerning differences in genetic variation between the X chromosome and the autosomes due to male X hemizygosity. The X chromosome should: (i) typically show relatively less standing genetic variation than the autosomes, (ii) exhibit more variation in males compared to females because of dosage compensation, and (iii) potentially be enriched with sex-specific genetic variation. Here, we address each of these predictions for lifespan and aging in Drosophila melanogaster. To achieve unbiased estimates of X and autosomal additive genetic variance, we use 80 chromosome substitution lines; 40 for the X chromosome and 40 combining the two major autosomes, which we assay for sex-specific and cross-sex genetic (co)variation. We find significant X and autosomal additive genetic variance for both traits in both sexes (with reservation for X-linked variation of aging in females), but no conclusive evidence for depletion of X-linked variation (measured through females). Males display more X-linked variation for lifespan than females, but it is unclear if this is due to dosage compensation since also autosomal variation is larger in males. Finally, our results suggest that the X chromosome is enriched for sex-specific genetic variation in lifespan but results were less conclusive for aging overall. Collectively, these results suggest that the X chromosome has reduced capacity to respond to sexually concordant selection on lifespan from standing genetic variation, while its ability to respond to sexually antagonistic selection may be augmented.

     

    Interesting that they also found more autosomal variation for males.

    ---

    I don't recall any special mention of the X chromosome in the Hsu papers (or any prediction papers I have seen). Have I just been missing that? Or is there some kind of standard practice assumed?

    I just searched for "x chr" in the recent height CS paper and did not see anything.

    P.S. Worth noting that this effect can be expected to decrease the percent variance explained by the Hsu predictor.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Firstly, people who unfortunately govern us is self selected or self promoted. Power and specially this type of power attract select for certain type of people. Even in democracy those who think they are good politicians or those who want the power don’t represent the best people with the best features to govern us. Politics is this magical place where people are not selected by their real capabilities to govern, strongly related to wisdom. Yes male politicians has been proved not so good to manage societies but not at priori because they are men and same conclusion can be done about female politicians.

    Caucasians namely western European Caucasians, are not considerably better to govern than other populations, in ideal ways. But they are on avg still better. It’s not compare good versus bad, whites versus non whites in politics but not so good whites versus not good non whites. Politics don’t select for quality, strictly speaking. One of the reasons to explain Sub development of third world countries is the intellectual and moral quality of their elites/political classes. Of course I’m not saying no have good non white politicians but that they tend to be even rarer than whites, already rarer. Politics require social skills like charisma and or dominance. It’s a circus, politicians are treated and chosen by their celebrity skills.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  225. @utu
    quite often the 98 IQ person

    I frequently see phrases like "x IQ person" on these pages. In my opinion it is a sloppiness of thought at best or abuse of language at worst. The animal called "x IQ person" has no ontic reality. You have to postulate it. But you can't even measure it. The uncertainty of IQ tests is way too high to say that this person is x or y IQ. At best you could say that a given person achieved the following x IQ score on the such and such test administered on June 17, 1989. Specifying the date is important because a test administered year later will be by ∆x different where ∆x can be quite large. Actually from the test-retest correlation of 0.9 ∆x has about 6IQ points standard deviation.

    The usage of the phrase like "x IQ person" is example of reification and stepping outside the boundaries of legitimate ontic framework. It gives away people who have been either manipulated into the belief of the IQ cult endeavor or people who are in the process of doing the manipulation others.

    By the way, IQ is not the only thing which might change over time. For example height, a remarkably stable number, can also change over the years. Most people stop growing somewhere between ages 15 and 20 (usually before age 18), but some people’s height (e.g. yours truly – my height increased roughly 1 cm somewhere between ages 24 and 32) might slightly increase later (in my case, probably due to doing sports and getting a better posture). It also usually (but not in a uniform manner) decreases in old age, at least for many people. It also varies according to time of day (like most people are shorter late in the evening than they are early in the morning), so you cannot measure it in a totally exact manner (or at least it’s quite difficult), but nevertheless in Europe we’re comfortable with notions such as “174 cm tall people” and “175 cm tall people”, even though there are people who would be measured 174 in the morning and 175 in the evening. We also understand that someone who was taller at age 20 will continue to be taller at age 65 (though there might be some individual variation, especially if the numbers are close, with some people decreasing in height, while others not, or not so much). It’s also easy to understand that there could be some small measurement errors (1 cm is certainly not impossible). But it’s not reasonable to throw out the concept of height (or of “174 cm tall people”) just because there might be some ambiguous cases.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    who would be measured 174 in the morning and 175 in the evening - I always thought we got shorter in the evening.

    There are difference between height and IQ that are substantial. If you took 1000 people in UK in 1920's and told them to stand next to each other so on your right is somebody who is not shorter and on your left somebody who is not taller and then decided that the 500th person (the median) in the row has a height equal to 100 height points (HP) ex definitione then continue doing it for next 60 years always assuming that the middle person in the UK has height equal to 100 HP until some guy named Flynn came to point out that these scheme is obscuring something perhaps only then we could use height analogy.

    But yes, I understand your point.
    , @James Thompson
    In the Isle of Wight population study, test-retest for child height over a month or two was lower than six month test-retest of Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Well, for one – China doesn’t have a lot of women in government, especially not in higher positions and if it was found that there would be reason not to have more, they would probably be much less motivated to alter this.
     
    Yes, they do. As many at higher levels as the USA, relatively speaking, and proportionately more at lower levels.

    Which is not the point. Do you have any notion of the hay that can be made of reports by "IQ researchers" with respect to denying women equal voice in politics?

    But, it's okay. I understand. All of that will change when the official word from the Temple of Knowledge establishes conclusively that women are stupid. A brave new era of enlightenment will dawn.

    This commenter does not seem to understand the concept of “knowledge for its own sake”, nor the fact that in most circumstances knowledge is useful, and that it does always influence decisions. It’s always more difficult to push through policies which many people know to be stupid, as opposed to policies which only few people know to be stupid. Similarly, opposition is stronger if the knowledge is clear and beyond dispute than if it’s just a vague feeling based on anecdotal evidence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. @AP

    Can you, under any conceivable set of future circumstances envision a world where females, negroes and latins are excluded from positions of power and responsibility because some dubious test suggests they are by nature inferior?
     
    Nobody is claiming that there would be some sort of quota based on the results of such research. That would be immoral and reflect a stupid lack of understanding of what the results mean. But, such research may prevent or limit "affirmative action" policies designed to boost the % of women in certain positions in order to compensate for discrimination, if it is proven that discrimination is not responsible for the lower numbers of women in that field. If it is shown that 2/3 of people with an IQ of 130 or above are men, it doesn't follow that jobs requiring such an IQ will have a legal quota mandating that 2/3 of workers in this field will be men. It will just mean that if, without any intervention, 2/3 happen to be men, nothing ought to be done to change things because we know that this reflects the natural abilities of each sex. If 9/10 happen to be men, the goal of policy interventions might be to get it to 2/3, rather than 50/50.

    (and again, to reiterate, I am not taking the position either way about whether or not Lynn is correct with his 4 point difference claim, but describing the implications if he is correct).

    Yes, that is the point. It depends on showing that the data on standard deviations and mean differences between the sexes are correct, and although the first is reasonably well established the second may be less so, but at least there is material which can be debated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    I think the meta-point that differences between groups in either abilities or preferences may exist and this matters in terms of representation in jobs, etc is also important. Taking l'affaire Damore as an example I think the observed sex differences in ability (most notably spatial skills) and preferences (most notably people-things) are enough to explain most (all?) of the difference in male/female ratio for high tech jobs. Also that preferences are both relative and absolute. An extremely capable woman might very well choose to be a doctor and work more with people rather than becoming a programmer and spending the day in front of a computer--even if well suited for the latter.

    Because of this it is not reasonable to automatically conclude that disparate representation means improper discrimination is happening. Though that should be considered as a possible explanatory hypothesis.

    But most people don't seem to want to even consider that possibility. Thus making it impossible to even have a reasonable conversation about this (plenty of evidence of that in this thread, not to mention l'affaire Damore).

    P.S. I realize you are aware of all of this, but I think it is worth emphasizing as part of the conversation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. utu says:
    @reiner Tor
    By the way, IQ is not the only thing which might change over time. For example height, a remarkably stable number, can also change over the years. Most people stop growing somewhere between ages 15 and 20 (usually before age 18), but some people's height (e.g. yours truly - my height increased roughly 1 cm somewhere between ages 24 and 32) might slightly increase later (in my case, probably due to doing sports and getting a better posture). It also usually (but not in a uniform manner) decreases in old age, at least for many people. It also varies according to time of day (like most people are shorter late in the evening than they are early in the morning), so you cannot measure it in a totally exact manner (or at least it's quite difficult), but nevertheless in Europe we're comfortable with notions such as "174 cm tall people" and "175 cm tall people", even though there are people who would be measured 174 in the morning and 175 in the evening. We also understand that someone who was taller at age 20 will continue to be taller at age 65 (though there might be some individual variation, especially if the numbers are close, with some people decreasing in height, while others not, or not so much). It's also easy to understand that there could be some small measurement errors (1 cm is certainly not impossible). But it's not reasonable to throw out the concept of height (or of "174 cm tall people") just because there might be some ambiguous cases.

    who would be measured 174 in the morning and 175 in the evening - I always thought we got shorter in the evening.

    There are difference between height and IQ that are substantial. If you took 1000 people in UK in 1920′s and told them to stand next to each other so on your right is somebody who is not shorter and on your left somebody who is not taller and then decided that the 500th person (the median) in the row has a height equal to 100 height points (HP) ex definitione then continue doing it for next 60 years always assuming that the middle person in the UK has height equal to 100 HP until some guy named Flynn came to point out that these scheme is obscuring something perhaps only then we could use height analogy.

    But yes, I understand your point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    That's a fair point, but probably relative height within an age cohort is quite stable as well. If you are my age and you were taller than me when we were both 20, chances are, you are still taller than me. Even if the difference was small, like only one inch. In my case there's this strange thing that I grew a centimeter somehow, but for all I know it's rare, so probably even one centimeter of difference stays stable throughout our lives.

    I'm also sure one centimeter is not much difference when it comes to playing basketball. However, if we formed hundreds or thousands or even larger number of teams of random people measured 173 cm, and large numbers of teams consisting of people measured 174 cm, and had them play against each other for hundreds of games, I'm sure that with a large enough sample we could find that the 174 cm teams beat the 173 teams slightly more than the other way around. Probably the effect would be rather small (it's just a very small component of basketball ability), and would need a very large number of games so that random variations (caused by things like a very talented 173 player here or there, etc.) could cancel each other out, but I'm sure it would be there.


    Regarding measurement errors, here's my personal example.

    Whereas I was measured several times between ages 18-24 to be 173 cm tall, which was the height I assumed to be my final height, at age 32 or 33 I was measured to be 174. (The measurement took place in the afternoon, after I hadn't had much sleep for three or four days in a row, whereas the measurement at age 24, which was done by the military, took place early in the morning, and as far as I remember after having slept well for a long time.) When I protested that I was only 173, the guy looked again, and he said I was somewhat below 174, maybe 1736 or 1737 mm, but definitely closer to 174. I'm not sure, maybe I was over 173 cm already at age 18. But then I was measured again at age 38, and they told me I was 175. I loudly protested (and told them that I was usually 173, but once I was measured 174, definitely nowhere near 175), so they measured again very carefully, and they said they had been wrong, I was somewhat closer to 174, but that I was closer to 175 than 173. So now I have a case of definitely having grown at least one centimeter.

    And now that I wrote it, I remember once at a doctor having been measured 174 already at age 19. I found it strange, but was happy to have grown once centimeter, and didn't push the issue. However, shortly afterwards another doctor measured me only 173, even after I told them I had been measured 174 before, but the doctor said it must've been a case of carelessness. At the military at age 174 I also told them that once there was a strange measurement of 174, so they looked again, and told me that I was definitely only 173. So I assumed it was only a wrong measurement, and almost completely forgot about it. Maybe it wasn't wrong at age 19, and my posture simply was usually so bad that it made me look one centimeter shorter? And that after having started doing sports in my late 20s, I improved my posture enough to get back to where I was at age 19? Impossible to tell. In any event, not only my relative height at age 20 is a bit ambiguous, but also my absolute height.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. @reiner Tor
    By the way, IQ is not the only thing which might change over time. For example height, a remarkably stable number, can also change over the years. Most people stop growing somewhere between ages 15 and 20 (usually before age 18), but some people's height (e.g. yours truly - my height increased roughly 1 cm somewhere between ages 24 and 32) might slightly increase later (in my case, probably due to doing sports and getting a better posture). It also usually (but not in a uniform manner) decreases in old age, at least for many people. It also varies according to time of day (like most people are shorter late in the evening than they are early in the morning), so you cannot measure it in a totally exact manner (or at least it's quite difficult), but nevertheless in Europe we're comfortable with notions such as "174 cm tall people" and "175 cm tall people", even though there are people who would be measured 174 in the morning and 175 in the evening. We also understand that someone who was taller at age 20 will continue to be taller at age 65 (though there might be some individual variation, especially if the numbers are close, with some people decreasing in height, while others not, or not so much). It's also easy to understand that there could be some small measurement errors (1 cm is certainly not impossible). But it's not reasonable to throw out the concept of height (or of "174 cm tall people") just because there might be some ambiguous cases.

    In the Isle of Wight population study, test-retest for child height over a month or two was lower than six month test-retest of Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    There's a research topic there, doc. For decades my height was 6'2.5". Then a year ago it was measured in hospital as 6'3.5". I'd expected I'd have started shrinking by now. What sort of measurement error can that have been? If I keep accelerating like this I'll soon reach the two metre mark.

    P.S. It doesn't correlate with my weight either; that is declining very slowly as I wrestle with the demon carbohydrates.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. res says:
    @James Thompson
    Yes, that is the point. It depends on showing that the data on standard deviations and mean differences between the sexes are correct, and although the first is reasonably well established the second may be less so, but at least there is material which can be debated.

    I think the meta-point that differences between groups in either abilities or preferences may exist and this matters in terms of representation in jobs, etc is also important. Taking l’affaire Damore as an example I think the observed sex differences in ability (most notably spatial skills) and preferences (most notably peopl