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

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 394 CommentsLeave a Comment
394 Comments to "Men 4 Points Ahead?"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  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.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Serg Derbst
  2. res says:
    @dearieme

    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

  3. 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.

  4. 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.”

  5. @res

    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.

    • Replies: @res
    , @EH
  6. res says:
    @James Thompson

    “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.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  7. 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.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  8. 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) )

    • Replies: @EH
    , @AnotherDad
    , @Harold
  9. EH 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.

    • Replies: @res
    , @James Thompson
  10. @res

    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.

  11. EH says:
    @James Thompson

    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.

    • Replies: @res
  12. 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.

    • Replies: @curt dunkel
  13. res says:
    @EH

    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.

  14. res says:
    @EH

    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.

    • Replies: @EH
  15. @Reg Cæsar

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

  16. @AP

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

  17. @EH

    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.

  18. EH says:
    @res

    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]

    • Replies: @res
  19. dearieme says:
    @James Thompson

    “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.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  20. @dearieme

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

  21. 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.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    , @res
  22. 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

    • Replies: @res
  23. res says:
    @EH

    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?

  24. res says:
    @Wency

    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.

  25. 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.

  26. res says:
    @hyperbola

    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.

    • Replies: @hyperbola
  27. 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.

  28. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    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.

    • Replies: @AP
  29. AP says:
    @Anon

    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.”

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  32. 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

  33. 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

  34. 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.

  35. 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?

  36. @res

    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).

  37. dearieme says:
    @Tom Welsh

    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).

  38. szopen says:
    @Tom Welsh

    ” 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)

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
  39. @utu

    IQ is very stable throughout one’s life

    After onset of adulthood.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  40. @Tom Welsh

    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.

    • Replies: @dcite
    , @Anon
  41. Joe Hide says:

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

  42. hyperbola says:
    @res

    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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  45. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  46. 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.

  47. Avery says:
    @reiner Tor

    { 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.

    • Agree: Dieter Kief
  48. @reiner Tor

    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.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
  49. 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

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  50. @Peripatetic commenter

    My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

  51. @newAccount

    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 .

  52. @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.

  53. @James Thompson

    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.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @utu
  54. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @James Thompson

    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.

  55. @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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  56. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  57. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @reiner Tor

    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.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Santoculto
  58. @James Thompson

    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?

  59. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

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

  60. @newAccount

    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.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  61. @EH

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  62. @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.

    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.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  63. @utu

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @utu
  64. @AnotherDad

    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.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  65. Harold says:
    @EH

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

  66. @James Thompson

    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?

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    , @res
  67. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  68. @James Thompson

    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

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  69. @James Thompson

    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’).

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  70. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  71. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Troll: Daniel Chieh
  72. @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.

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  73. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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 …

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  74. @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.

    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.

  75. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    “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?

  76. @Peripatetic commenter

    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.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
  77. 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.

    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.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  78. szopen says:
    @utu

    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?

    • Replies: @utu
  79. @utu

    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.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Wizard of Oz
  80. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  81. @szopen

    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.

    • Replies: @szopen
  82. szopen says:
    @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)??

    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

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  83. @Peripatetic commenter

    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.

  84. @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)??

    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”.

  85. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  86. utu says:
    @szopen

    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.

    • Agree: John Jeremiah Smith
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  87. @utu

    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.

    • Replies: @phil
    , @utu
    , @James Thompson
  88. @thisAccount

    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.

  89. phil says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  90. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

  91. 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.

  92. dearieme says:
    @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).

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  93. @James Thompson

    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.

  94. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  95. @phil

    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.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @utu
    , @phil
    , @phil
    , @szopen
  96. @dearieme

    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.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  97. @utu

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

  98. @CanSpeccy

    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.

  99. @utu

    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.

    • Replies: @utu
  100. @dearieme

    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.

  101. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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?….

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  102. @James Thompson

    Allow my tiny Aspergerish component to mention #102

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  103. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  104. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  105. utu says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  106. 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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  107. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  108. @utu

    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!

  109. @utu

    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)?

  110. @Mark Presco

    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.

    • Replies: @Mark Presco
  111. @utu

    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.

  112. @utu

    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.

  113. 4 points ahead…

    But men no have a U-shape distribution??

  114. Mark Presco says: • Website
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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?

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  115. phil says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  116. phil says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  117. @Mark Presco

    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.

  118. @phil

    Baloney. IQ and $2 buys a cup of coffee. The rest is all about who’s your daddy.

  119. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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?

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  120. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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”?

  121. @Wizard of Oz

    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

  122. @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 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

  123. szopen says:
    @James Thompson

    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.

  124. @dearieme

    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

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  125. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  126. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

  127. @James Thompson

    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.

  128. @James Thompson

    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?

  129. @szopen

    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.

    • Replies: @szopen
  130. szopen says:
    @Santoculto

    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”.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  131. 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

    • Replies: @Passer by
    , @Passer by
  132. @James Thompson

    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.

  133. @Wizard of Oz

    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.”

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  134. @szopen

    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?

    • Replies: @szopen
  135. @John Jeremiah Smith

    Nice dodging thanks to my leaving it open by not insisting you had to choose someone quick smart.

  136. @szopen

    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”.

  137. @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’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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  138. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

  139. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  140. @szopen

    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!

    • Replies: @szopen
  141. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  142. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  143. szopen says:
    @James Thompson

    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?

  144. @szopen

    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.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @res
    , @reiner Tor
  145. res says:
    @James Thompson

    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

  146. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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….

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  147. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  148. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    (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)

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  149. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @res
    , @Wizard of Oz
    , @reiner Tor
  150. dcite says:
    @jacques sheete

    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.

  151. @szopen

    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. ;-)

  152. res says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  153. res says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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?

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  154. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  155. szopen says:
    @res

    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.

    • Replies: @res
    , @res
  156. @res

    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.

  157. @res

    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.

    • Replies: @res
  158. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  159. @Wizard of Oz

    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.

  160. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  161. res says:
    @szopen

    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.

  162. res says:
    @szopen

    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.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  163. @reiner Tor

    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.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  164. 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.

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  165. Even women advantage in humanities is questionable.

  166. @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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  167. @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.

    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.

    • Replies: @res
  168. @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.

    That’s pure bullshit.

  169. @res

    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.

  170. res says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  171. @res

    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.

    • Troll: szopen
    • Replies: @res
    , @reiner Tor
  172. res says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Ad hominems – best way ever to say to someone arguing with you – “you win.”

    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
  173. anon • Disclaimer says:

    “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

  174. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  175. @James Thompson

    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

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  176. @Wizard of Oz

    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

  177. @reiner Tor

    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.

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @reiner Tor
  178. res says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    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.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  179. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  180. @szopen

    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.

  181. @szopen

    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?

    • Replies: @szopen
    , @utu
    , @AP
  182. szopen says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

    • Agree: res, Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  183. utu says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Keep it up. Do not back off. You need to double down when dealing with the IQ Komsomol activists.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  184. AP says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  185. utu says:
    @AP

    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.

  186. @szopen

    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.

  187. @utu

    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.

  188. @AP

    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.

    • Replies: @utu
  189. @AP

    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”?

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @AP
  190. @utu

    As we all know, for genetic reasons variation must be higher for males.

    • Replies: @utu
  191. @utu

    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.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @utu
  192. utu says:
    @reiner Tor

    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.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @res
  193. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  194. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  195. szopen says:
    @utu

    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).

    • Replies: @utu
  196. utu says:
    @reiner Tor

    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.

  197. utu says:
    @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.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  198. @utu

    Yes, variance. Your thinking on the XX chromosomes is wrong, however.

  199. @utu

    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.

  200. 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.

  201. @utu

    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.

  202. @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.

    “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.

  203. utu says:
    @szopen

    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.

  204. @utu

    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”.

  205. Oh, dear, censorship. Tsk, tsk, Mr. Thompson, tsk, tsk.

  206. res says:
    @utu

    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.

    • Replies: @res
  207. res 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.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @utu
    , @utu
  208. AP says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  209. 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.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @AP
  210. @res

    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.

  211. @res

    This a bad hill for utu to choose to die on, tbh.

    • Agree: res
  212. @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.

    World doesn’t end at the shores of the USA, yanno.

  213. AP says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    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).

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  214. 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.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  215. utu says:
    @res

    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.

  216. utu says:
    @res

    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.

    • Replies: @res
  217. 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.

  218. @utu

    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.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @James Thompson
  219. @John Jeremiah Smith

    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.

  220. @AP

    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.

    • Replies: @res
  221. utu says:
    @reiner Tor

    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.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
  222. @reiner Tor

    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.

    • Replies: @dearieme
  223. res says:
    @James Thompson

    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.

  224. res says:
    @utu

    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.

    • Replies: @res
    , @utu
  225. dearieme says:
    @James Thompson

    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.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    , @CanSpeccy
  226. res says:
    @res

    This 2017 paper on male pattern baldness looks at the X chromosome and autosomal chromosomes separately: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006594
    It uses the UK biobank data. The paper authors make 293MB (zipped!) of their (summary?!) data available at http://www.ccace.ed.ac.uk/node/335
    That site also has data (1.1GB, zipped!!) available for this 2016 GWAS paper on cognitive function and educational attainment: http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v21/n6/abs/mp201645a.html

    Abstract:

    Male pattern baldness can have substantial psychosocial effects, and it has been phenotypically linked to adverse health outcomes such as prostate cancer and cardiovascular disease. We explored the genetic architecture of the trait using data from over 52,000 male participants of UK Biobank, aged 40–69 years. We identified over 250 independent genetic loci associated with severe hair loss (P<5×10-8). By splitting the cohort into a discovery sample of 40,000 and target sample of 12,000, we developed a prediction algorithm based entirely on common genetic variants that discriminated (AUC = 0.78, sensitivity = 0.74, specificity = 0.69, PPV = 59%, NPV = 82%) those with no hair loss from those with severe hair loss. The results of this study might help identify those at greatest risk of hair loss, and also potential genetic targets for intervention.

    The predictor effectiveness is not great, but I like the way they used a separate test set and presented multiple performance metrics.

    Some excerpts I found interesting:

    The total proportion of variance in male pattern baldness that can be attributed to genetic factors has been estimated in twin studies to be approximately 80% for both early- and late-onset hair loss [11, 12]. Newer molecular-genetic methods have estimated the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based, common-variant heritability of baldness at around 50% [13]. Molecular methods also indicate a degree of overlap between genetic variants linked to baldness and those linked to phenotypes such as height, waist-hip ratio, age at voice drop in males, age at menarche in females, and presence of a unibrow [14].

    The genome-wide association study of the four-category self-reported baldness measure in 52,874 White British men from UK Biobank yielded 13,029 autosomal hits from the imputed data (P<5×10-8), in addition to 117 hits (out of 14,350 genotyped SNPs) on the X chromosome (Fig 1).

    Using common genetic variants with a minor allele frequency of at least 1%, GCTA-GREML analysis found that 47.3% (SE 1.3%) of the variance in baldness can be explained by common autosomal genetic variants, while 4.6% (SE 0.3%) can be explained by common X chromosome variants.

    Notice the outsize contribution of the X chromosome.

    Genetic correlations were examined between male pattern baldness and 24 cognitive, health, and anthropometric traits using LD Score regression. No significant associations were found; all estimates were close to zero (S6 Table).

    In the table there were a number of interesting nominally significant results (see excerpt above), but none survived FDR correction.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  227. @dearieme

    In the Isle of Wight study, most of the variance was probably caused by kids not always standing up straight, but in a number of cases the health visitors had read the scale incorrectly. There are errors, and errors.

  228. @res

    Isn’t it well known that baldness is on your mothers side? Bodes well for me. Grandfather died at 56 with full head of hair.

    I will return to our other conversations in the other thread later tonight. I’ve been busy lately.

    • Replies: @res
  229. utu says:
    @res

    I don’t recall any special mention of the X chromosome in the Hsu papers

    Me neither. But to tell you the truth I do no see how to reconcile Hsu’s polygenic score with the rules of Mendelian genetics of varying dominance. This does not apply to the 23rd chromosome only. If you have a list of SNPs values in one row of Hsu’s A matrix (y=Ax) then the SNPs from the pair of chromosomes must be treated as pairs in the polygenic function and not as independent SNP’s and the polygenic score is not additive with respect to the two SNPs in one pair. I just do not have a good mental map yet of this problem. I need to do some reading but I am not sure where to start.

    • Replies: @res
  230. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    Isn’t it well known that baldness is on your mothers side? Bodes well for me. Grandfather died at 56 with full head of hair.

    That’s the conventional wisdom (or old wive’s tale?). The thing is, that is exactly the pattern seen for X chromosome based inheritance (e.g. see color blindness). So the paper supports there being some truth in that. For example: “The top gene-based hit was, as expected, the androgen receptor on the X chromosome (P = 2.0×10-269).” (love that p-value ; )

    But in reality things are more complex. First, the maternal X chromosome passed to her son will be a mix of the X chromosomes from both maternal grandparents. Second, in aggregate the autosomal chromosomes are more important.

    P.S. This article on X chromosome inheritance patterns might be helpful for thinking about this: http://www.genie1.com.au/blog/63-x-dna

  231. res says:
    @utu

    But to tell you the truth I do no see how to reconcile Hsu’s polygenic score with the rules of Mendelian genetics of varying dominance.

    Linearity is often a pretty good match to reality. Even when it is not it is helpful to remember that when the MAF is 0.3 we have only 9% of people homozygous for the recessive (for MAF of 0.1 only 1% are homozygous recessive). This means that in terms of variance explained those homozygous recessives are not that important (assuming no major consequences, anyway).

    This is a critical reason for not treating a population predictor as a good individual predictor. Or even worse, as predictive of a desirable target for genetic engineering. Visualize something like sickle cell trait where an additive model might conclude homozygous for sickle cell is a good thing. Oops!

    I wonder if it is possible to improve individual prediction by flagging cases where an individual has rare cases for significant SNPs? Given that each SNP is of small effect (we think, though consider some of the Ashkenazi alleles giving heterozygote advantage with disease possible for homozygotes) probably would not change the prediction much.

    • Replies: @utu
  232. @utu

    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.

    [MORE]

    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.

  233. utu says:
    @res

    Linearity is often a pretty good match to reality. – But there are always limits. It appears that to account for the tails of IQ distribution a nonlinear model needs to be used.

    not treating a population predictor as a good individual predictor – One may think of phenomenological thermodynamics and statistical thermodynamics as an example. In the end it comes down to behavior of individual molecules. What Hsu or GWAS is about is individual predictors. I really would like to see an explanation how to mathematically incorporate Mendelian dominance into Hsu’s scheme.

    • Replies: @res
  234. Passer by says:
    @newAccount2

    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.

    • Replies: @res
  235. Anoymous says:

    Here is a question to you all. This has been bothering me for weeks and i am asking it here because i am not aware of any other site now that is currently discussing the differences between male and female brains (in a way):

    A female brain can do everything a male brain can, so why did god create male brains? Why not another female brain in a male body?

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  236. Passer by says:
    @newAccount2

    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

  237. res says:
    @utu

    I really would like to see an explanation how to mathematically incorporate Mendelian dominance into Hsu’s scheme.

    Have you read the nonlinear compressed sensing paper? https://gigascience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13742-015-0081-6

    If there are only two relevant alleles for a given SNP all you need to model is three values corresponding to AA Aa aa. A quadratic equation will fit that exactly. There may be issues with penetrance of course. No predictor will be perfect as long as environment accounts for a decent proportion of the variance. I don’t know how nonlinear CS will perform if aa is rare.

    SNPs with more than two alleles are rare enough that I am not sure we need to worry about them. Here is one example: https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs6467

    More discussion of poly-allelic SNPs if anyone wants to follow up on this: https://www.biostars.org/p/511/

    • Replies: @utu
  238. @Anoymous

    A female brain can do everything a male brain can, so why did god create male brains? Why not another female brain in a male body?

    Well, it can’t, don’t you see? Male brains were created from Euphrates effluvial mud — God being one to use the closest available materials, we assume God was standing ankle-deep in the river at the time. The catch is that females were made from a rib, so female brains are all subsets of rib DNA. That’s why chicks are dumb, and ticklish.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  239. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    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.

  240. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @dearieme

    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?

    Height, like mental acuity, is not an exactly fixed quantity. US General Stilwell, Vinegar Joe, failed entry to university and thus sought entry to West Point, but he was too short. Hence he spent several weeks lying in bed before presenting himself as a candidate, which sufficiently decompressed his spine to achieve the minimum height requirement.

  241. @CanSpeccy

    Re Terman, a good predictor will not be a perfect predictor. Terman was verbally focused in his testing, and thus missed some very bright students. Test for verbal, mathematical and spatial for best results.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  242. res, utu, and Dr. Thompson,

    Ken Richardson published a paper a few months ago showing that correlations are inevitable and meaningless with GWAS. Though the paper isn’t open access and I cannot find it. I was wondering if Dr. Thompson or anyone else could locate the paper and leave some thoughts?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.15252/embr.201744140/full

    Genomewide association studies that describe genetic variation linked to educational and professional success are heralded as a future basis for personalized learning. Such portents are misleading as these studies do not take more complex social factors into account.

    • Replies: @res
    , @James Thompson
  243. res says:
    @Passer by

    Thanks for your interesting comment. That SMS observation in Jarvik (1975) was a good find. Also from that paper:

    There are also the standardization data for the WAIS, ages 16-64 years. Here again, we have actual scores and are dealing with a single study of a presumably representative white American population, and not the conglomerates presented earlier (Figs. 1-3). Those who, like myself, were familiar with the old Wechsler-Bellevue and did not pay particular attention to the changes in the WAIS, may be surprised to see that on only 2 subtests did males and females obtain similar mean scores (Fig. 4). These 2 subtests were Digit Span and Picture Arrangement. On 6 of the remaining 9 subtests, males scored higher than females, the most striking differences being on the Arithmetic subtest where the females obtained a weighted score of about 9.2 and males of about 10.3. The 3 tests on which females obtained the higher mean scores were Similarities, Vocabulary, and Digit Symbol Substitution, with the most marked difference in favor of women on the Digit Symbol test. (The value obtained by men fell below the scale used in Fig. 4.) With the exception of Object Assembly, the sex differences were all statistically significant.

    What is perhaps even more impressive than the statistical significance reached by the differences for all ages combined, is the remarkable consistency with which the sex differences were displayed by the 7 age groups into which Wechsler separated his sample. On Information and Arithmetic, mean scores for males were higher than for females in each one of the age groups, while for Comprehension Picture Completion, and Block Design a difference in favor of males occurred in 6 out of the 7 age groups. Higher mean scores for females were consistently achieved for all 7 age groups on Vocabulary and Digit Symbol Substitution and for 5 of the 7 age groups on Similarities.

    These clear-cut sex differences on subtests of the most widely used test of general intelligence may come as a surprise to some readers. They did to me. To someone who has carefully read the WAIS manual, however, they are well known. Wechsler devotes an entire chapter to the discussion of sex differences in intelligence. He was himself impressed with these findings and constructed a masculinity-femininity (MF) index from the differentiating subtests. The masculine tests are Information, Arithmetic and Picture Completion; the feminine tests are Vocabulary, Similarities and Digit Symbol Substitution. By deducting the sum of the weighted scores on the feminine tests from the sum of the weighted scores in the masculine tests, an MF score is obtained. A postive MF score signifies a masculine, and a negative score a feminine trend. I leave to the reader the interpretation of the implications of that scale.

    wechsler subtest “mf index” appears to be a useful search. For example, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221309.1963.9920552?journalCode=vgen20
    we see:

    He then worked out tables of male and female percentile scores based upon the following formula: male tests-female tests. He states that plus scores indicate masculinity and minus scores femininity, Furthermore “that a score of minus 3.5 or lower is feminine for men and the score of plus five or higher is masculine for women” (2, p. 149).

    There is some literature looking at M-F index and other cognitive and personality measures by sex and sexual orientation.

    This paper (DOI 10.1002/1097-4679(197807)34:33.0.co;2-2 ) looked at a number of measures and their correlations finding significant relationships for both sex and sexual orientation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/690201

    The following is worth noting before looking at the following paper (emphasis mine):

    It is important, to note that each of the M-F indices correlated more highly with sexual orientation in the combined-sex group than it did in either of the single-sex groups. That is, when the correlations were based on a restricted range of scores, as in a single-sex group, the correlation between any M-F scale and the bipolar criterion measure was grossly underestimated. The significant correlation between each of the M-F scales and sexual orientation over the full range of scores provides additional support for our contention that M-F can be viewed as a bipolar dimension. It also should be noted that the magnitude of the correlations in the combined-sex group suggests that each of the three bipolar M-F indices possesses considerable external validity when self-rated sexual orientation is the criterion indicator.

    This paper gives a headline (final line in abstract) conclusion of “We conclude that sexual orientation is not related to specific cognitive abilities.”: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21097178_Sexual_orientation_and_cognitive_abilities

    But looking inside we find things like (HS = homosexual, HT = heterosexual):

    Given the literature reviewed here, it appears that there may be relationships between specific cognitive abilities and sexual orientation. HS men resemble women in both verbal and spatial abilities but HS women do not resemble men in spatial abilities.

    Consider the following in the context of the previous paper excerpt above:

    The present study compares the performances of a carefully selected group of HS and HT subjects on a well-known measure of M-F and on six tests of cognitive abilities. Here, we are testing the gender atypicality hypothesis within-sex by sexual orientation.

    Unfortunately, our reference comparison adds little for judging the reliability of the cognitive data. We replicated sex differences in spatial abilities, but not in verbal or mathematical abilities. The above-mentioned limitations of our sample and the WAIS might also account for this finding. However, we think that sexual orientation is an unlikely predictor of gender-atypical cognitive abilities given our data and the failure of others to find any association between M-F and intellectual function. In men, differences on three cognitive measures suggest that sexual orientation could be a predictor, but only in some unspecified way. Perhaps HS men are gender-atypical in verbal abilities but indistinguishable in other cognitive abilities.

    One concern I have with this paper is that they eliminated “relatively bisexual” subjects. I am not sure what kind of bias this might introduce. For example, for the men: “HS subjects have composite Kinsey ratings of 5-6; HT subjects have composite Kinsey ratings of 0-1.” Thus the entire middle of the range has been excluded.

    P.S. Dr. Thompson discuss Hyde’s spatial results at http://www.unz.com/jthompson/google-culture-wars/#p_1_23:1-11
    and I speculate at some length in this comment: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/google-culture-wars/#comment-1971075

    Do you have any thoughts on the un/timed distinction for spatial tests? My speculation is that timed better reflects true spatial skills while untimed adds a g-loaded component.

  244. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    Terman was verbally focused in his testing

    Well was he measuring IQ or not?

    Terman used the Stanford-Binet test which, is said to measure “both verbal and nonverbal subtests [those being] quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, working memory, and fluid reasoning.” Sounds like an IQ test to me. So are we to suppose that there are multiple IQ’s, and that a person can be both high and low IQ at the same time?

    What Terman actually demonstrated was that IQ does not measure exceptional ability. Indeed that a high IQ may preclude exceptional ability.

    What, in fact, IQ presumably measures is all-round ability. Hence the professional success of those with a high IQ: e.g., good bedside manner, good diagnostic skills, good PR, good office management skills, good bookkeeping skills, hence a million-dollar-a -year doctor.

    But geniuses are not all rounders. IQ-125 Richard Feynman was a bad speller, wrote poorly but thought obsessively about certain matters in which he demonstrated genius. Einstein was in the same mold, and as an intellectual, like Feynman, displayed obvious mediocrity. Shakespeare, one assumes, in the realm of quantum mechanics, would have proved as dumb as a bag of hammers, Charles Darwin, was not much more than an obsessive collector beetles, but by the sheer breadth and depth of his knowledge of biological diversity he made something of it.

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

    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.

    I think the SMPY and Duke TIP studies refute that statement. Here is a Nature article about the SMPY: http://www.nature.com/news/how-to-raise-a-genius-lessons-from-a-45-year-study-of-super-smart-children-1.20537

    This graphic shows clear outcome differences for higher IQ individuals:

    This is a good overview of studies like this: From Terman to Today: A Century of Findings on Intellectual Precocity

    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654316675476

    http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/From-Terman-to-Today-A-Century-of-Findings-on-Intellectual-Precocity.pdf

    Abstract:

    One hundred years of research (1916–2016) on intellectually precocious youth is reviewed, painting a portrait of an extraordinary source of human capital and the kinds of learning opportunities needed to facilitate exceptional accomplishments, life satisfaction, and positive growth. The focus is on those studies conducted on individuals within the top 1% in general or specific (mathematical, spatial, or verbal reasoning) abilities. Early insights into the giftedness phenomenon actually foretold what would be scientifically demonstrated 100 years later. Thus, evidence-based conceptualizations quickly moved from viewing intellectually precocious individuals as weak and emotionally labile to highly effective and resilient individuals. Like all groups, intellectually precocious students and adults have strengths and relative weaknesses; they also reveal vast differences in their passion for different pursuits and their drive to achieve. Because they do not possess multipotentiality, we must take a multidimensional view of their individuality. When done, it predicts well long-term educational, occupational, and creative outcomes.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @CanSpeccy
  246. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    It is available on libgen. Search for DOI 10.15252/embr.201744140

    These aspirations have been thwarted by finding only small and usually non-significant associations and failure to replicate the results.

    There are significant associations and some (most? not all) replicate.

    Here is his conclusion in its entirety:

    A superficial reading of papers on GWAS and CA/EA can seem quite convincing: “hard” genetic data, neat scores, and simple correlations. However, they skim over the social, historical, and psychological complexities of human populations and the nature of cognition and education. Associations between SNPs and CA or EA are an inevitable result of the class structure of developed societies, unevenly dispersed immigration, and the “systemic stratification” created by the use of the measures themselves. Such deliberate perpetuation of stratification, and non-independence of variables, also confounds attempts to correct for population structure
    in GWAS/PGS.

    This questions at least part of the motivation of GWAS for cognitive functions: to
    foster a targeted genetic approach to improve human cognitive development and education. That, of course, is a daunting prospect. Some investigators are rightly cautious about such aspirations, if only about the technical feasibilities. However, their concerns should be dispelled by the realization that the aspiration is not merely technically daunting, but conceptually unrealistic. The dynamics of human variation, group differences, and measurement reside—as argued here—in far more complex, multi-level systems.

    Finally, it is worth emphasizing that there are many other assumptions underlying this
    research program, not least about the nature of the gene itself, and of human development.
    Others warn that the simple, hundred-year-old models of genetic variation underlying GWAS
    are now known to be far from genetic realities and have led to an upsurge in GIGO (GarbageIn Garbage-Out) genetics. It may be time to give those critiques some closer attention.

    Do you really find “reasoning” like this compelling?

    What does this sentence even mean? Can you please explain it to me? “Others warn that the simple, hundred-year-old models of genetic variation underlying GWAS are now known to be far from genetic realities and have led to an upsurge in GIGO (GarbageIn Garbage-Out) genetics.”

    Is he trying to say that additive genetics is not a complete explanation? Now there is a revelation. I guess explaining 40% of variance for height is “garbage.”

    Some more questions, do you think the recent compressed sensing results for height are valid (e.g. not subject to his arguments)? If so, would doing something similar for IQ and/or EA be valid?

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  247. @CanSpeccy

    IQ tend to catch

    Quantitative
    General cognitive skills

    Psychometricians promised a analysis and or research on qualitative side but… At least by now…

    They tend to separate psychological aspects/personality from cognition, they call in unilateral way, “intelligence”.

    Intelligence for many if not most of them is just useful in job and school. To deal and understand other people we supposedly needed use our personalities. Maybe a moderate straw man…

    Other common mistake of psychometricians is to over exaggerate mathematic skills as if the rest is not important.

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

    LOL

    Thanks for posting the graph which amply refutes your own contention.

    First, the SAT math test is not an IQ test.

    Second, look at the abysmally low predictive power. Almost half as many in the bottom quartile on the SAT math test obtained a doctorate, published in a STEM journal, etc. than those in the top quartile. In other words, being a math dummy is hardly a barrier to advancement in the bitchy, boring and increasingly servile world of academia.

    And what of the math dummies in the arts? Ha! that we are not to know. Oh maybe they didn’t get so many doctorates in history as the math geeks got in physics, but so what? There is just no great call for doctorates in history, and few of those who might have an interest in the subject are going to waste years of their lives in pursuit of a qualification that will likely get them, at best, an adjunct position teaching from a lying text (from which they must not deviate) for a minimum wage under the supervision of the jackass bureaucrats who now run America’s once great and now crap universities.

    • Replies: @res
  249. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @John Jeremiah Smith

    Nice, but i am looking for more serious answers. If not god … then nature or universe or multiverse or random chance. Basically whoever or whatever gave rise to male brains and female brains. Why did the said entity give rise to male brains?

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  250. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    In fact, what your graph chiefly shows is that (a) the more numerate a person is the more likely they will opt for studies the STEM field rather than the arts, and (b) more people in the STEM field obtain a PhD, publish in STEM journals, obtain patents, etc. than people of a more literate disposition who tend to seek academic qualifications in the arts. Certainly it tells you nothing about intelligence and achievement.

  251. utu says:
    @res

    If there are only two relevant alleles for a given SNP all you need to model is three values corresponding to AA Aa aa. A quadratic equation will fit that exactly.

    Here is a function f(x,y) that can models this. Two SNPs x and y that have values A or a. A and a have some numerical values like 0 and 1 according to some convention.

    f(x,y)=D0+D1(x-a)(y-a)+D2[(x-A)(y-a)+(x-a)(y-A)] , where D0,D1,D2 are coefficients to be found from the fit

    f(a,a)=D0
    f(a,A)=D0+D2(a-A)(A-a)
    f(A,a)=D0-D2(A-a)(a-A)=f(a,A)
    f(A,A)=D0+D1(A-a)^2

    This is 2D polynomial f(x,y)+d0+d1*x+d2*y+d3*x*y with four coefficients. The offset d0 is a part of one global offset in the fit for all SNPs. d1 and d2 are already part of the linear fit, however they may need to be decoupled from the linear fit to mimic working of f(x,y) function. This might be an issue. But if we ignore it for now all what is left adding the mixed term xy. I think this would be encompassed by what is proposed by Hsu in his nonlinear paper, though the quadratic terms are not necessary just the mixed terms suffice.

    The BD models have s causal loci, each of which has (randomly determined) linear and quadratic effects on the phenotype, as well as mixed terms coupling one locus to another. In biological terms, this model describes a system in which each locus interacts with others in the same block (including itself), but not with loci outside the block.

    Instead of trying all possible mixed terms only SNPs that are parts of the same pair in the chromosomes could be mixed to reduce the number of terms.

    2nd thought: I am not sure about if there are more than two alleles this model will suffice. Need to think about whether x^2*y and x*y^2 need to be added to model AA, Aa, aa, bb, ba, bA.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @res
  252. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Why did the said entity give rise to male brains?

    Charles Darwin gave the answer, at least on broad lines, quite a while back. There is a division of roles between male and female, which results in different selective pressures on males and females for, among other things, brain function. The result? Men and women are not, despite what the (high IQ) idiots ignoramuses who run Google say, intellectually identical.

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

    Other common mistake of psychometricians is to over exaggerate mathematic skills as if the rest is not important.

    It’s the lamp post fallacy. Giving people a numbers quiz is easier than determining whether they would be able to find their way home from an expedition into the Australian outback, or would die of thirst trying.

    The real problem is that few psychologists seem to know anything of biology and thus of what intelligence is, i.e., the capacity for behavior that promotes survival and reproductive success, at least under the circumstances under which the human mind was largely shaped.

  254. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    And if men and women are not intellectually identical, then almost certainly women are better than men at certain things, just as men are likely a lot better than women at, say, killing people (even after discounting for the sex difference in weight and strength). But that’s a complication the psychomets. won’t consider since it would necessitate the complication of separate male and female IQ scales.

    • Replies: @res
  255. utu says:
    @utu

    The difference between male and female predictor functions would be that on the 23 chromosome females would have mixed terms and 2 times more more SNPs:

    f_male=sum(Ai*SNPi)
    f_female=sum(Ai*SNPi)+sum(Bj*SNPj)+sum(Aij*SNPi*SNPj)

    The functions would be fitted to data sets of males and females separately. Where SNPi are shared by male and female and SNPj are on the X chromosome that women only have. Would Aj coefficients be the same for male and female? In case they would be it is harder to imagine that std.dev. of f_female would be smaller than that of f_male.

  256. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    It’s the lamp post fallacy. – But you realize that the fuckers are in the process of constructing the reality where there is only one lamp and they are in control of where it shines. Once they are done with it their reality will be cemented for good. It will be more effective and thus permanent than slavery or any other social caste stigmatizations ever used. The only problem will be with children of the nomenklatura who do not perform well despite of being given plenty of opportunities and being sent through IQ enhancement mills. There still be Uday and Qusay Trump or Hussain. Genetic engineering and snatching smart children of the less fortunate will be a solution.

    I like the image of some people on the Australian outback. Actually I have a list. Should we start the Ultimate IQ Tours and invite Ulster University faculty at discount?

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

    Second, look at the abysmally low predictive power. Almost half as many in the bottom quartile on the SAT math test obtained a doctorate, published in a STEM journal, etc. than those in the top quartile. In other words, being a math dummy is hardly a barrier to advancement in the bitchy, boring and increasingly servile world of academia.

    You do understand those “math dummies” were in the top 1% for math performance, right? I wonder what the average population rate is for those achievements.

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

    I repeat, have you read the nonlinear compressed sensing paper? If you are going to engage with this question you should do so.

    Why are you making this so hard? For the bi-allelic case (AA Aa aa) just create an equation in terms of a single variable–the number of As (or as) present (0, 1, or 2). Fitting a linear equation to that just gives the additive model. Fitting a quadratic equation will give an exact fit.

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

    And if men and women are not intellectually identical, then almost certainly women are better than men at certain things

    But that’s a complication the psychomets. won’t consider since it would necessitate the complication of separate male and female IQ scales.

    See my comment 251 which discusses the subtests where women score better. You look smarter when you make comments which are not already refuted by earlier comments.

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

    Yes, I read the paper. You better read my two comments and you will see how it really may work. You can thank me later. You quadratic eq idea is nonsense. You have two variables not one!

    • Replies: @res
  261. @res

    Libgen is being dumb for me right now and not loading. Care to provide the pdf for me? Thanks. I came across the paper a few days after he published it and searched libgen for it but it wasn’t up yet.

    Do you really find “reasoning” like this compelling?

    On the nature of the gene itself and multi-level systems (intelligent systems)? Very much so. Intelligent systems theory is very interesting. Richardson has a book on that as well.

    We need to discuss the nature of the gene too. That’s important for the discussion.

    Others warn that the simple, hundred-year-old models of genetic variation underlying GWAS are now known to be far from genetic realities and have led to an upsurge in GIGO (GarbageIn Garbage-Out) genetics.

    I don’t know I haven’t read the paper (libgen is being dumb). Does he bring up the ‘simple, hundred-year-old models of genetic variation underlying GWAS’ in the paper? I do believe that we should start to look differently at genes—not as ‘causal agents’—but as slaves to the developmental system. See Denis Noble and Eva Jablonka’s work.

    Here is a quote from Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb’s book Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life (I forget the page number, I had this quote in an email):

    One of the things that molecular studies have reinforced is something that had already been accepted by modern geneticists: the popular conception of the gene as a simple causal agent is not valid. The idea that there is a gene for adventurousness, heart disease, obesity, religiosity, homosexuality, shyness, stupidity, or any other aspect of mind or body has no place on the platform of genetic discourse. Although many psychiatrists, biochemists, and other scientists who are not geneticists (yet express themselves with remarkable facility on genetic issues) still use the language of genes as simple causal agents, and promise their audience rapid solutions to all sorts of problems, they are no more than propagandists whose knowledge or motives must be suspect. The geneticists themselves now think and talk (most of the time) in terms of genetic networks composed of tens or hundreds of genes and gene products, which interact with each other and together affect the development of a particular trait. They recognize that whether or not a trait (a sexual preference, for example) develops does not depend, in the majority of cases, on a difference in a single gene. It involves interactions among many genes, many proteins and other types of molecule, and the environment in which an individual develops.

    Yet, if a gene has meaning only in the context of the complex system of which it is a part, the standard way of thinking about evolution, in terms of changes in the frequency of one or more isolated genes, needs to be questioned. For example, it may be more appropriate to focus on changes in the frequency of alternative networks of interactions rather than on the frequencies of individual genes.

    I think the last paragraph is very compelling. What are your thoughts on looking at genes in the whole system and not only at singular genes outside of the context of said system (going back to our previous discussion on holism/reductionism)?

    Some more questions, do you think the recent compressed sensing results for height are valid (e.g. not subject to his arguments)? If so, would doing something similar for IQ and/or EA be valid?

    Do you have a reference?

    By the way, here is the full chapter 1 of the book I just cited if you care to read it (I believe this quote is in the first or second chapter):

    https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262600699_sch_0001.pdf

  262. @Anonymous

    Nice, but i am looking for more serious answers. If not god … then nature or universe or multiverse or random chance. Basically whoever or whatever gave rise to male brains and female brains.

    I believe the human brain varies in accordance with physical biochemistry of the host, gender-related biochemistry being a member of the set.

    There is a peculiarly obsessive subset of male individuals who focus on calling out various faults women have. Some members of that subset have glommed happily onto the IQ angle. Which figures, ya know. Some people just gotta do what they gotta do. Ain’t no point in essplaining to them anything different.

    It is an equal-opportunity obsession. Women do it, too, with respect to intelligence and personality weaknesses of men.

    One can be forgiven almost any sin but that of pointing out such behavior in men or in women.

  263. @CanSpeccy

    The real problem is that few psychologists seem to know anything of biology and thus of what intelligence is, i.e., the capacity for behavior that promotes survival and reproductive success, at least under the circumstances under which the human mind was largely shaped.

    Prezackly. This is the sort of research that would be a legitimate pursuit of the “behavioral genetics” thumped by that dickhead, Jayman.

  264. res says:

    Libgen is being dumb for me right now and not loading. Care to provide the pdf for me?

    Libgen was being troublesome for me as well earlier. Please just keep trying. I don’t have a good way to provide files anonymously and don’t like direct linking to libgen.

    Yet, if a gene has meaning only in the context of the complex system of which it is a part, the standard way of thinking about evolution, in terms of changes in the frequency of one or more isolated genes, needs to be questioned. For example, it may be more appropriate to focus on changes in the frequency of alternative networks of interactions rather than on the frequencies of individual genes.

    I think the last paragraph is very compelling. What are your thoughts on looking at genes in the whole system and not only at singular genes outside of the context of said system (going back to our previous discussion on holism/reductionism)?

    I don’t find the paragraph compelling in this context. It is talking about evolution and may be meaningful in that context, but I don’t think it has much to say concerning looking at the relationships between current genotypes and phenotypes.

    I am an engineer. One of the most important abilities for engineers is making reasonable simplifications to manage complexity. Telling me that complexity exists (which I already know) does not make those simplifications less useful. The nice thing about engineering is that at the end of the day you can usually observe working vs. not working. The ability to create useful prediction functions is a clear indicator of “working” IMHO.

    Remember that Richardson’s paper title is: “GWAS and cognitive abilities: Why correlations are inevitable and meaningless.” I would say a useful prediction function refutes that title. Perhaps you are familiar with this quote: “The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

    https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomashuxl101763.html

    Some more questions, do you think the recent compressed sensing results for height are valid (e.g. not subject to his arguments)? If so, would doing something similar for IQ and/or EA be valid?

    Do you have a reference?

    It was discussed quite recently in this blog, but since you asked nicely: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/heritability-lost-and-found/

  265. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    The real problem is that few psychologists seem to know anything of biology and thus of what intelligence is, i.e., the capacity for behavior that promotes survival and reproductive success,

    So in your world what intelligence really is, is something that this guy has:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146545/Man-fathered-30-kids-11-different-women-says-needs-break–child-support.html

    Apparently, it takes knowledge in biology to make such a conclusion.

  266. res says:
    @utu

    You have two variables not one!

    There is a constraint. There are exactly two alleles at a given SNP.

    If you have a constraint x + y = 2 then you can reduce things to a single variable by substituting y = 2 – x

    This is high school algebra, utu.

    P.S. From the nonlinear compressed sensing paper, Data Description section (emphasis mine):

    most of our simulations are performed using synthetic genomes with the minor allele frequency (MAF) restricted to values between 0.05 and 0.5. The synthetic genomes are determined as follows: generate a random population-level MAF ∈ (0.05, 0.5) for each locus, then populate each individual genome with 0,1,2 SNP values according to the MAF for each locus.

    • Replies: @utu
  267. utu says:
    @res

    If you have a constraint x + y = 2 then you can reduce things to a single variable by substituting y = 2 – x

    How relevant this is to the problem? You have two SNPs that are independent of each other. What allele is in one does not determine allele in the other, so your elementary, dear Watson example x+y=2 does not make sense.

    Show me the function that can have three different values for three combinations AA, Aa, aa. It also must be symmetric, i.e., the value for Aa and aA is the same.

    You can verify yourself that the function I explicitly constructed in Comment #259 is the lowest degree 2D polynomial that can do it. Yes, it is elementary. And yes, you can thank me later.

    I am going back to thinking about the three alleles case.

    • Replies: @res
  268. @CanSpeccy

    I think promote reproductive success and survive is one of the consequences of intelligence but its primitive concept would be capacity to reach the balance via adaptation. Evolution usually happen when this balance is broken and species need reinvent itself to re-adapt.

    Civilization mean cultural accumulation while aboriginal culture is instead a improvement of the same general needs the most simpler use of it.

    I said “systemizing” people tend to be biased against non-mathematical skills and as they are the majority on STEM… Instead we have a real understanding of intelligence we have a distorted conceptualization that favor “systemizing” stuff. Separate cognition from personality and name the first as intelligence is also a clever way to suggest the demoralization of intelligence, even it wasn’t their original intention.

    Maximization of adaptation seems select against real intelligence = capacity to adapt in challenging circumstances, “real” or maximized intelligence.

    Civilization also creates a fake reality that we don’t live in the place where all types of tensions among different groups is in course.

  269. res says:
    @utu

    No comment on my 0, 1, 2 PS? I guess you missed that part when you read the nonlinear CS paper. That point is the crux of this discussion.

    If you are really talking about 2 SNPs (and not the 2 alleles of a single SNP) then you are talking about gene-gene interaction which is indeed different.

    For the bi-allelic case on a single SNP we have the following:

    Show me the function that can have three different values for three combinations AA, Aa, aa. It also must be symmetric, i.e., the value for Aa and aA is the same.

    Assume we have the following cases:
    alleles x y
    AA 0 p
    Aa/aA 1 q
    aa 2 r
    x is the numerical representation of the genotype (0, 1, 2) while p, q, r are the numerical values for the phenotype.

    Then we just fit the parabola y = ax^2 + bx + c to those three points:
    p = c
    q = a + b + c
    r = 4a + 2b + c
    Since p, q, and r are given we have three equations in three unknowns (a, b, c). Solving for a, b, and c gives the appropriate equation.

    Since you don’t seem to believe a word I say and also seem to have skipped high school algebra somehow here is a link describing the procedure (see “General Form”): http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/emt668/emat6680.f99/jones/instructional%20unit/writingquads.html

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

    But you realize that the fuckers are in the process of constructing the reality where there is only one lamp and they are in control of where it shines. Once they are done with it their reality will be cemented for good.

    Yes. It’s happened before. It was called the Dark Ages. But now the world is more interconnected, so it is doubtful if the American empire will sink into ignorance and oppression without interference from more dynamic agents, China, maybe, a revived Russian Empire, or even a Europe that has cast off the oppressive rule of the Chosen, I mean Indispensable, nation.

  271. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    You do understand those “math dummies” were in the top 1% for math performance, right?

    You do understand that there is far greater variation in ability in the first one percentile, than in any other slice of the population of comparable size.

    Among the one percent will be a majority of bright students who kept up and have a reasonably good grasp of Grade 12 math. Then there will be the people who are really interested in math, rockets, engineering, etc., who have mastered most if not all of the university math curriculum, and may even have read Feyneman’s Lectures on Physics and worked all the examples.

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

    Ah, yes, your comment at 251 looked rather long and complicated. In the spirit of Carpe diem, I skipped it, but it confirms what I said, namely that men and women are good a different things and, therefore, the idea that IQ measures “intelligence” goes down the tubes. All that fiddling around with the numbers to make it sound as though the intelligence of men and women can be compared when they are scored on different tests seems absurd.

    And if there is a male intelligence that differs from a female intelligence, why not a transgender intelligence or a homosexual intelligence, not to mention the obviously very different intelligences of a poet, a politician, a pianist and a professional poker player.

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

    So in your world what intelligence really is, is something that this guy has:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146545/Man-fathered-30-kids-11-different-women-says-needs-break–child-support.html

    LOL. The Daily Mail, the intelligent man’s guide to science.

    But why do you consider that fathering 30 children with a total of 11 [different!] women does not display intelligence?

    Isn’t fathering children, at least in the preliminary phase, a pleasurable experience to most men, and is not the search for pleasure the object to which most men direct their intelligence?

    It seems clear, and is certainly in accord with evolutionary theory, that this guy has the kind of mentality that will be around long after IQism has breathed its last.

    • Replies: @AP
  274. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You do understand that there is far greater variation in ability in the first one percentile, than in any other slice of the population of comparable size.

    Well, there is the bottom 1% (i.e. your statement is wrong.). But yes, I am well aware of how much variation there is in the far reaches of the tail.

    It is fascinating to watch how you respond to evidence.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  275. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    What Terman actually demonstrated was that IQ does not measure exceptional ability. Indeed that a high IQ may preclude exceptional ability.

    That Terman managed to exclude from his selection of young “geniuses” the only two among those screened who proved with a Nobel Prize in physics to be geniuses indeed*, strongly suggests that the all-round ability represented by a high IQ does indeed preclude genius.

    This makes perfectly good sense on the assumption that genius depends on narrow focused mental development, which likely entails appropriation of cognitive resources to the area of special interest. This view of genius, as a the result of unbalanced development driven by obsessive thinking, is consistent with what is known about geniuses of the highest order, including Newton, Darwin, Clerk Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman, Churchill (verbiage) and likely most, if not all, others.

    Thus, the obsession of American educators with IQ likely ensures the exclusion of many individuals of potential genius from the educational opportunities best able to foster their singular talent.

    ———
    * William Shockley, who led the Bell Labs team that invented the transistor, and physicist Luis Alvarez.

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

    It is fascinating to watch how you respond to evidence.

    Meaning that I demolished your point and that your quibble is trivial.

    • LOL: res
  277. utu says:
    @res

    Clearly you are not getting it including the nonlinear paper. Look at the formula (3) in the paper. g are values of SNP that can be 0, 1, or 2. In our case there are only two alleles so assume that g is 0 or 1. These values of variables g are from rows of matrix A in eqs.(1). There are no other variables there than g in formula (3).

    What did you do? You constructed new variable x from two variables g1 and g2:

    If (g1+g2==0) then x=0
    if (g1+g2==1) then x=1
    if (g1+g2==2) then x=2

    and then

    y = ax^2 + bx + c

    This is your function that depends on three conditional statements. Clearly you do not see a variable like this in Hsu’s formula (3) which depend only on g values. While your approach would work but it would require extra code of programming to create your function which points to two specific SNPs and probably extra code to handle this while doing the optimization.

    In the comment above #259 I demonstrated that the desired effect that you have eaccomplished in cumbersome and non imaginative way is gotten by one bilinear function with a mixed term:

    y=a*g1+b*g2+c*g1*g2

    which already is present in Hsu’s formula (3) in its first linear term and third mixed term. The quadratic middle term is superfluous for this.

    Now note that your x=g1+g2 actually. Plug this into your trinomial and you will get 2D polynomial that has two linear terms, mixed term and two quadratic terms g1^2 and g2^2. Did I say that my 2D polynomial is the lowest degree polynomial that does the job? But your polynomial has two extra terms. If you plugged it into the fit you would have two extra degrees of freedom which could lead to a problem particularly in the undetermined case as it is.

    While I do not claim that your klutzy approach would not work but certainly it is not what would be used in Hsu’s merit function and since you have refereed to his paper several times during this discussion and even admonished me that I haven’t read it I assumed you understood the nature of the mathematical problem. Perhaps you have reading comprehension issues. I admit you are well read. You always have a propos paper in your sleeve to back up your argument. People like that are sometimes called erudites. Sometime one can be too well read because when you read you do not think creatively on your own. No time left for original thought that you could claim as your own. Didn’t your advisor tell you to do the right balancing act between reading and thinking? Many women I went to college with excelled in reading. It is kind of a feminine thing it seems. Did you check your 23 chromosome lately?

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

    I would not get too attached to the narrative of Luis Alvarez not having a high IQ. He was part of Anne Roe’s study of eminent scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Roe#Body_of_work
    so there are high ceiling IQ test results available in her papers: http://www.amphilsoc.org/collections/view?docId=ead/Mss.B.R621-ead.xml

    pp. 162-164 of her book talk about the verbal scores. Two experimental physicists scored below 40 (raw) on the verbal test. If one of those was Alvarez there is a decent chance that explains the Terman result (my understanding is the test Terman used had a verbal bias). Worth noting that all of the physicists hit the (high) ceiling on the math test. Anne Roe also included a spatial test.

    Dr. Thompson, is there any chance of you or someone else in ISIR getting access to Anne Roe’s papers? There is a 10 years past date of death restriction for each scientist, but most are past that limit. I only see one who is not yet past that limit (he died last year at age 101): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Bruner

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  279. @CanSpeccy

    IQ don’t measure achievements as poetry or chess game mastery.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  280. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    But why do you consider that fathering 30 children with a total of 11 [different!] women does not display intelligence?

    And why do you think it does?

    is not the search for pleasure the object to which most men direct their intelligence?

    Let’s follow your reasoning. Perhaps we can add junkies, to prolific men, as the type of people who are most “intelligent” in your world.

    It seems clear, and is certainly in accord with evolutionary theory, that this guy has the kind of mentality that will be around long after IQism has breathed its last

    In your world, does Idiocracy actually portray a world that has become more intelligent than the current one?

    Are sub-Saharan Africans currently the most intelligent people on the planet, and Japanese the least intelligent?

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

    Two experimental physicists scored below 40 (raw) on the verbal test. If one of those was Alvarez there is a decent chance that explains the Terman result (my understanding is the test Terman used had a verbal bias).

    There we go again. Alvarez had a high IQ but his low verbal score let him down.

    Look, either IQ is a thing or it is not. But the case of the Termites and the Nobel Prize winners who failed to make the cut indicates that it is not.

    There are multiple facets of intelligence and people differ in what they are more or less good at. Women, overall, are better than men in certain ways, men are better, overall, than women in other ways. Thus it makes no sense to compare them. They have different intelligences.

    That is true even of a comparison between, say, a physics professor and an imbecile. True the professor may be better at anything you care to name than the imbecile, but not necessarily. The case of savants, proves the point. Someone such as Derek Paravicini would be classified as an imbecile in most respects, yet he has musical gifts that have probably never been matched by any Nobel prize winner in physics.

    Paravicini is a striking example of someone whose mentality has developed in a highly specialized way, almost certainly appropriating in the process neurological resources than in another individual would have been put to other uses. So who is the most intelligent, Derek Paravicini or Louis Alvarez? It’s an absurd question, their intelligences are incommensurable, as in a less extreme degree is yours and mine, or those of any other two people.

    And again “the test Terman used had a verbal bias,” meaning clearly that there is no test that measure this pure thing called IQ because that pure thing does not exist, it is an artifact arrived at by the addition of scores of tests of different mental capacities.

  282. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    IQ don’t measure achievements as poetry or chess game mastery.

    Or humor, or musicality, or artistic originality, or kinaesthetic integration, or just about anything that is really important.

    The amazing thing is that despite all the hype about IQ there is no compelling evidence that people of exceptional achievement have IQ’s out of the ordinary, i.e., higher that one of Terman’s little geniuses who disappointingly failed to demonstrate genius. One suspects that that is because mostly geniuses really don’t have exceptional gifts other than in their domain of their special accomplishment.

    And isn’t it the case that the American citizen with what is supposed to be the highest IQ has been, in real life a bouncer, a laborer, and now lives on a backwoods farm where he raises a couple of goats. (I guess the last shows intelligence of a kind.)

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  283. res says:
    @utu

    Nice rant.

    • Replies: @utu
  284. utu says:
    @res

    For three alleles you will do 5th degree polynomial, right? I keep forgetting you are an engineer. As long as it works duct tape will do.

    • Replies: @res
  285. @CanSpeccy

    I think fantastic accomplishment tend to correlates with subtests more than with tests, for example, be exceptional on verbal analogy but not necessarily on verbal IQ. If general “intelligence”/cognition is totally or considerably causal to genius/i mean higher creativity + favorable psychological traits so in prominent position all people with higher general cognitive skills/scores would be or would reach the genius level but it doesn’t happen.

    I read that Res example of “mathematically precocious talent” is not a trivial sample of higher/highest IQ people so would be good use more random sample of highly cognitive/IQ smart people and preferentially in academic positions to know if this people have similar rates of accomplishments. To work in academia people already must have some “favorable” psychological traits as conformity-proneness. Also is important to know if this mathematically precocious people have been big achievements at genius levels.

    But again IQ don’t measure achievement potential but (cognitive) potential. Far to be a perfect measurement because there are a list of misunderstood by psychometricians namely conceptual ones, but at least is hard to conclude that IQ tests are meaningless or that don’t measure anything important.

    Indeed IQ is just a relatively superficial confirmation (what I said) about cognitive general trends. If I always was good on some cognitive task so it’s expected that IQ tests will reflect it via higher scores. If I always since early in life I have showed great vocabulary knowledge in my mother tongue so it’s expected that at least in certain verbal subtests I will show this. The fundamental function of IQ tests is to organize or hierarchize population cognitive capabilities in rankings.

    What make me mad often about psychometrics is how bad they are, in my view, in their understanding of creativity and rationality. Both are so important and cannot be totally separated from what they call”intelligence” because they complement this mosaic. Maybe rationality is conceptually different because it’s express some of the “intelligence-products” or ends while intelligence itself (crude capacity to connect the dots/pattern recognition) is the means which can reach this ends.

    The simple fact that most smarter people are not that rational already show that we are talking about two different categories of people: workers and thinkers, I mean, not pseudo intellectual ones. IQ, what I always say, measure more about general worker skills than thinker ones.

    The current”despise” of morality or benign/or better rational empathy, already show certain levels of ignorance about both if we simply act in moral ways all the time in our daily choices. Many people confuse morality with conservatism or with religion and it’s not exactly like that.

    For “intelligence researchers” creativity should have a special place because well everything we have it’s due creativity, I’m sounding repetitive but it’s just the obvious thing to say. Highly creative individual invent something whatever its area of fixation and other people may learn what he/she invented and what psychometricians call “only-ones smarter” will be those which will learn this quickly. Creativity rarely have a place that it deserve in psychometrics while “intelligence”/cognition is the main subject.

    • Agree: CanSpeccy
  286. @CanSpeccy

    Would be great if both of perspectives were taking into account. Individual and comparative/collective.

  287. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @AP

    Let’s follow your reasoning. Perhaps we can add junkies, to prolific men, as the type of people who are most “intelligent” in your world.

    You are hopelessly muddled and determined not to think anything through in an intelligent way.

    It is not intelligent to engage in the pursuit of drug-induced short-term pleasure at the cost of degradation and early death.

    • Replies: @AP
  288. res says:
    @utu

    For three alleles you will do 5th degree polynomial, right?

    Most people don’t seem to feel the need to do that in practice. Does anyone? Perhaps you can look for an example. Your comment is the antithesis of good engineering. Complexity should not be introduced unless it is necessary.

    Let’s end this exchange with some references in case anyone else would like to better understand GWAS.

    A guide to genome-wide association analysis and post-analytic interrogation http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sim.6605/full

    Abstract:

    This tutorial is a learning resource that outlines the basic process and provides specific software tools for implementing a complete genome-wide association analysis. Approaches to post-analytic visualization and interrogation of potentially novel findings are also presented. Applications are illustrated using the free and open-source R statistical computing and graphics software environment, Bioconductor software for bioinformatics and the UCSC Genome Browser. Complete genome-wide association data on 1401 individuals across 861,473 typed single nucleotide polymorphisms from the PennCATH study of coronary artery disease are used for illustration. All data and code, as well as additional instructional resources, are publicly available through the Open Resources in Statistical Genomics project: http://www.stat-gen.org. © 2015 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

    Notice the following from section 4.1:

    The assumed underlying genetic model of association for each SNP (e.g., dominant, recessive, or additive) will impact the resulting findings; however, because of the large number of SNPs and the generally uncharacterized relationships to the outcome, a single additive model is typically selected. In this case and as illustrated in the code provided, each SNP is represented as the corresponding number of minor alleles (0, 1, or 2). Notably, coding SNP variables based on alternative models (e.g., dominant or recessive) is straightforward, and the association analysis described proceeds identically [26, 27].

    They use the 0, 1, 2 representation again. I think utu’s comments about that in this thread (when he thought it was just my idea, LOL!) make clear how much he knows what he is talking about here.

    Chapter 11: Genome-Wide Association Studies: http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002822

    Abstract:

    Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have evolved over the last ten years into a powerful tool for investigating the genetic architecture of human disease. In this work, we review the key concepts underlying GWAS, including the architecture of common diseases, the structure of common human genetic variation, technologies for capturing genetic information, study designs, and the statistical methods used for data analysis. We also look forward to the future beyond GWAS.

    The overview is good, but I especially like the figures: 1. Spectrum of Disease Allele Effects, 2. Linkage and Linkage Disequilibrium, and 3. Indirect Association.

    Although figure 1 is for disease associations I think it is conceptually relevant for GWAS of quantitative traits as well. In particular it is worth thinking about GWAS in different populations and how population frequency for SNP alleles might mean a relevant SNP appears significant for a GWAS in one population and not another (LD and indirect association are other reasons this may happen of course). Here it is (this probably won’t embed properly):

    http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002822.g001

    Basic statistical analysis in genetic case-control studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154648/

    This is focused on binary traits rather than quantitative, but has some good overview material (e.g. a glossary) and goes into great detail on tool use.

    Abstract:

    This protocol describes how to perform basic statistical analysis in a population-based genetic association case-control study. The steps described involve the (i) appropriate selection of measures of association and relevance of disease models; (ii) appropriate selection of tests of association; (iii) visualization and interpretation of results; (iv) consideration of appropriate methods to control for multiple testing; and (v) replication strategies. Assuming no previous experience with software such as PLINK, R or Haploview, we describe how to use these popular tools for handling single-nucleotide polymorphism data in order to carry out tests of association and visualize and interpret results. This protocol assumes that data quality assessment and control has been performed, as described in a previous protocol, so that samples and markers deemed to have the potential to introduce bias to the study have been identified and removed. Study design, marker selection and quality control of case-control studies have also been discussed in earlier protocols. The protocol should take ~1 h to complete.

    • Replies: @utu
  289. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    You are hopelessly muddled and determined not to think anything through in an intelligent way.

    I merely reflected your own argument. You stated: ” is not the search for pleasure the object to which most men direct their intelligence?”

    It is not intelligent to engage in the pursuit of drug-induced short-term pleasure at the cost of degradation and early death.

    So in your world, is a junkie who lives a long time “intelligent?” How about those people consuming Soma in Brave New World – very intelligent, in your view? As intelligent as the welfare guy with 30 kids with 11 women, or even more intelligent than he is? I am trying to help you refine your personal idea of intelligence.

  290. @CanSpeccy

    Is this paragraph of yours a fair summary of your general position?

    There are multiple facets of intelligence and people differ in what they are more or less good at. Women, overall, are better than men in certain ways, men are better, overall, than women in other ways. Thus it makes no sense to compare them. They have different intelligences.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  291. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    So in your world, is a junkie who lives a long time “intelligent?”

    I characterized no specific action as intelligent. I characterized the pursuit of pleasure as the object to which human intelligence is generally applied, recognizing of course, that people derive pleasure from an extraordinary range of thing from climbing mountains to solving equations, and that some apply more intelligence to the pursuit of pleasure than others.

    The thing is, you are a typical Daily Mail reader, outraged that some Ethiopian managed to father 30 children by eleven women. You are also a typical Unz.com reader in that you are convinced that intelligence is somehow the highest virtue and can be measured in a single linear scale.

    This kind of muddle of emotion and bad science leads to the kind of dumb dead-end civilization that the EuroAmericans have created for themselves, or rather have allowed those who manipulate them, to create.

    To understand the behavior of the Afro-American philander who you so despise, you should read some competent exposition of evolutionary theory. Darwin is probably the best for those interested only in the broad outlines. I would suggest the complete works. Having read Darwin you will understand better why people, in general, enjoy doing what propagates their own kind (genes). You will also understand better your own indignation at the substantial reproductive success of the character described by the Daily Mail. For one thing, you are probably, paying for it, or at least paying for the reproductive success of that class of individuals — paying for it via the welfare system.

    So what you should really be angry about is the stupid system of government under which you exist, which exploits people like you to further the reproductive success of the likes of the philoprogenitive Desmond Hackett.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @res
    , @AP
  292. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    James, I’m not sure where your question is leading, but the paragraph you quote seems as valid now as when I wrote it, although there is a lot there to, as the philosophers put it, unpack. The reason I deny that IQ is a thing is that I deny the importance, though not the existence, of g.

    The idea that intelligence is a unitary thing (i.e., g), measurable on a linear scale seems, from the perspective of brain physiology, anatomy, and development, highly implausible. Moreover, the statistics show a low mean correlation among scores on tests of different cognitive functions, and thus do not confirm the centrality of g.

    Yes, there are some features of the brain and whole body physiology upon which all mental activity must depends: energy metabolism, membrane properties, blood flow, etc. Therefore, one should not be surprised if there is a low level of correlation among all aspects of mental capacity, as appears to be the case. Moreover, as Utu has been at pains to show, factor analysis may reveal more than one common factor affecting all mental capacities: g1, g2, g2, g x, y and z.

    But it seems most unlikely that one will ever have a good theory of human intelligence without recognizing the complexity of the brain and the diverse ways in which mental function may be modified by experience, education, and environmental factors. To repeat what I said on another thread, brain functi0n depends on more than eighty neurotransmitters, each of them with its own biosynthetic pathway, and possibly its own secretory, reuptake and catabolic mechanisms. How likely is it that every part of the brain and every brain function depends on all of these neurotransmitters equally? Not very, I would say, in which case there is reason to suppose that the speed and power of different mental facilities will not be well correlated, the absence of close correlation reflecting genetically determined variation in the physiological basis of the different mental processes.

    Mental activity is compartmented among brain regions and structures that show proportional variation in mass among individuals. For this reason also, one should not expect a close correlation among different mental capacities.

    Mental capacity depends on developmental changes, including neurogenesis associated with learning, which means that even in the absence of other causes of variation, one should expect variation among the facets of intelligence dependent on culture, schooling, motivation, etc. Moreover, intense engagement in specific mental activities may well involve reassignment of neurological resources, which would explain the high frequency of obsessives among geniuses.

    It is because intelligence is not a thing, but a collection of cognitive capacities of which the development of one may be at the expense of development of another that genius emerges rarely, in the well-rounded high IQ individual but more often in the eccentric, the obsessive, and even, as in the case of many savants, the brain damaged.

    • Agree: John Jeremiah Smith
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @utu
  293. @CanSpeccy

    Well, based on Ethiopian demographic trends and global human demographic trends I’m as a “daily mail reader” but starting from the assumption people who read this paper tend to be working class so I can infer that your argument is classicist because you are judging intelligence and character via social class instead analyze firstly why this kind of people tend to become terrifying with this news specially if they already have knowledge enough about current demographic trends and possible global impacts for example many of this Ethiopians escaping from super populated and desperately poor country and finding a new home in some working/middle class neighborhood in Britain.

    And remember that intelligence is a evolvable concept namely within species but the most timeless of all its features is the real capacity go maximize reached balance and have many kids without correct ways to keep them seems a non-actualization based on current reality.

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

    So what you should really be angry about is the stupid system of government under which you exist, which exploits people like you to further the reproductive success of the likes of the philoprogenitive Desmond Hackett.

    At least you and I (not the person you were responding to) agree on something. Some corrections though. The name is Desmond Hatchett and he appears to have (at that time?) 24 children, not 30. Also, he is from Knoxville, TN, not Ethiopia: http://archive.knoxnews.com/news/local/magistrate-hes-prolific-but-knoxville-dad-doesnt-really-have-30-kids-ep-360705348-356973501.html/

    And here is a 2016 article about this intelligent individual: http://wate.com/2016/03/15/wanted-suspect-arrested-in-east-knoxville-after-brief-chase/

    And a followup. Apparently they are reduced to saying 20-some children now: http://www.wbir.com/news/crime/prolific-ex-convict-faces-assault-stalking-charges/84244220

    The punchline (though in truth this is not really funny) is the offense (emphasis mine):

    assaulted a woman who was pregnant with his child Jan. 4 near Bethel Avenue and Surrey Street, according to records. He rammed a vehicle she was in with his Dodge Avenger, according to the charge.

    I guess he is not done yet.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  295. @CanSpeccy

    “Intelligence is something we know what is but don’t know how to describe it”. You’re dealing with it in very literal way.
    If intelligence is not a thing what is it??
    There are some emergent evidences showing little impact of environmental factors on personality. Well…we can see this among themselves, among our own families. Indeed for perceptive people it’s not necessary “scientific” studies showing or proving what we can see for ourselves. I don’t need science or psychology is this case to know/to perceive behavioral differences between me and my brothers and infer that this differences cannot be explained by “environmental factors” (family environment) only or fundamentally if this happen since early age and with the same environmental factors. Genetics explain much better incredible similarities among identical twins as well this discrepancies we usually found among non-identical-twin brothers and sisters.

  296. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    [to] have many kids without correct ways to keep them seems a non-actualization …

    What is the “correct” way to keep a child?

    Welfare seems to work well for those who depend on it, both in North America and Europe.

    Here, in fact, is what seems to be happening or is in the offing:

    (1) Suppression of the fertility of Europeans due to PC bollocks in the name of sex “education” and the economic oppression of high housing costs and low wages caused by massive immigrant competition for housing and jobs, the effects exacerbated by high taxes to fund the welfare that enables the replacement immigrant population to multiply.

    (2) Eventual population collapse, probably elite instigated, due to nuclear winter, plague, mega-tsunami, grain harvest failure, whatever, the remnant population to be largely Afro-Asian, and the base from which future generations of “Europeans” will evolve.

    So, yes, welfare, may serve the inheritors of the European lands very well.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  297. Maybe we are right that many psychometricians are not well intentioned when they defend genetic rule on behavior but it doesn’t mean they will be wrong about their point of views, maybe very crude, insensitive, unphilosophical in some of their intentions for example blaming lower cognitive skills for higher propensity of criminality among this groups.

  298. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @res

    he is from Knoxville, TN, not Ethiopia

    Yes, but I meant Ethiopian in the sense employed by H. L. Mencken.

    As for all the facts being wrong, what else could one expect from a reputable news source such as the Daily Mail.

  299. @CanSpeccy

    Keep family with responsibility as possible or reachable.

    Welfare in the way is being used, what you say, is a elite-instigated.

    It’s a reverse colonization with the same-approach ever by so-called “elites”: people against people.

    A advise: Don’t try to correct my grammar, it’s not the major subject here.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  300. AP says:
    @CanSpeccy

    I characterized no specific action as intelligent

    You wrote: “what intelligence is, i.e., the capacity for behavior that promotes survival and reproductive success”

    And after I posted the funny article about the guy with 30 children, you further clarified: “why do you consider that fathering 30 children with a total of 11 [different!] women does not display intelligence?

    Isn’t fathering children, at least in the preliminary phase, a pleasurable experience to most men, and is not the search for pleasure the object to which most men direct their intelligence?

    It seems clear, and is certainly in accord with evolutionary theory, that this guy has the kind of mentality that will be around long after IQism has breathed its last.”

    So you were, at the very least, strongly suggesting what actions you considered to be signs of intelligence.

    The thing is, you are a typical Daily Mail reader

    Um, actually no. It’s something that came up through google. I’ve never read it. I didn’t even read that entire article.

    Since you are wrong about even such a simple thing, we can assume that you muddle more complex issues even worse. But here you are, wrong about even more simple things:

    outraged that some Ethiopian managed to father 30 children by eleven women.

    I posted the article about this man as an examplar of your idea of intelligence. I wrote nothing about my feelings towards him and his predicament (which, if you want to know, are ones of amusement rather than outrage). You are now making things up. I suppose this highlights your approach to truth? Or is it projection?

    And he isn’t Ethiopian but an American. This demonstrates your approach to facts.

    You are also a typical Unz.com reader in that you are convinced that intelligence is somehow the highest virtue and can be measured in a single linear scale.

    Intelligence has nothing to do with virtue, of course.

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

    Intelligence has nothing to do with virtue, of course.

    Of course? Aristotle held that reason directs man to virtue.

    And he isn’t Ethiopian but an American. This demonstrates your approach to facts.

    As already noted, I used Ethiopian in Mencken’s sense, i.e., an African American, the latter being a term not current in Mencken’s day. (Quite likely Mencken adopted the term Ethiopian with Sam Johnson’s Rasselas, an Abyssinian prince, in mind (Ethiopia being an alternative name for the Abyssinian empire)).

    As for the rest, my energy level flags. If you insist that men do not apply their intelligence to the attainment of pleasure, I am happy for you to hold that opinion. I just happen to think it is incorrect.

  302. utu says:
    @res

    res, you are getting deranged. Where did you get this from: I think utu’s comments about that in this thread (when he thought it was just my idea, LOL!) make clear how much he knows what he is talking about here. And who do you address this comment to? Do you think anybody else reads this stuff besides me? Or is it your habit when having a conversation you also address the passerby’s with comments about your interlocutor?

    Anyway, what numbers we use to code different alleles is irrelevant. There can be 0,1,2 or or any other equally spaced sequence or I think, not equally spaced sequence still will lead to equivalent solution. It will somehow work out mathematically. When I thought about the problem of mathematizing of DNA fit to trait first time (obviously w/o reading because I do not have to read and will rather figure things out on my own) I concluded that we can have 0,1,2,3 or any other numbers to do it. At that time I assumed there are four possibilities because there are A, C, G, and T of versions each SNP expression or so I thought. Then when I read Hsu’s paper for the first time I was puzzled why he had only 3 possibilities 0,1,2. I remain puzzled. Do you have an explanation? What am I missing? I understand that genes can have many alleles like five or even more but this is because they may contain several SNPs that define them. But how many alleles can one SPN have? Three or four?

    The assumed underlying genetic model of association for each SNP (e.g., dominant, recessive, or additive…a single additive model is typically selected.

    e)

    We are not interests in a single additive model because it is trivial mathematically though still extremely challenging numerically. Let’s look at Hsu’s formula (8) again with its linear, quadratic and mixed terms. The equation is whether this formula as it is can take care of the Mendelian stuff? This is why I needed to construct 2D polynomial that does Mendelian stuff. Do you understand know? I have already shown that two linear terms and one mixed term take care of pair of SNPs with two alleles to emulate Mendelian dominant/recessive stuff. For 3 alleles one needs 6 terms. And we already have them in Hsu’s formula (8): 2 linear terms, 1 mixed term and 2 quadratic terms and an offset. The offset actually can be by definition set to zero if vector y in equation y=Ax has its mean removed as it is commonly done in all fitting procedures.

    So, the most important conclusion here is: Hsu’s formula (8) can account for Mendelian dominate/recessive stuff for up to three alleles. It can’t account for 4 alleles (if they are possible, see my question in previous paragraph above). For 4 alleles one would need cubic mixed terms in formula (8).

    Let’s return to the approach you have proposed. For two alleles you need a quadratic term that already exists in formula (8). So far so good, but you need to append the matrix A with an additional column of x values defined by the sum of values of the two SNPs. The question is now whether you should remove the two column with the values for these two SNPs from the matrix A because if you leave them then you create a more complex effect: effect of the two SNPs via your x as Mendelian effect and two SNPs individually vial linear and other terms. So what would you do? Perhaps you can find it in some book you have read already.

    Now, if you wanted to go with your approach (I know it is not yours; you read it somewhere because nothing what you know is really yours) for three alleles you would have to generate 5th degree polynomial of x and append the x to matrix A and change Hsu’s formula (8) to contain 5th, 4th and 3rd powers. But you do not seem to be concerned: Most people don’t seem to feel the need to do that in practice. Which is a typical engineering approach on your part: Since we have never heard of it we do not worry.

    But the most important problem is that when looking for the predictor function we do not know which SNPs’s will end up in the predictor function ahead of time. The Lasso method is supposed to find these SNPs and some of these SNPs will act individually and some in tandem to produce Mendelian effects. So we do not know which pairs of SNPs need to be used to calculate your x ahead of time. Yes, computer can do it for all possible pairs but then the matrix from say, n columns will swell up to n(n-1)/2 columns. So as you can see your approach (I am sorry, not yours, but from some book you diligently in a state of awe have read) sucks.

    The bottom line is that formula (8) in Hsu’s nonlinear paper can take account of the SNP’s partial dominance, i.e., the Mendelian stuff. You can thank me now for learning this.

    • LOL: res
    • Replies: @utu
  303. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Also do not forget about your streetlight fallacy argument.

    Why car industry or aerospace industry did not come up through some factor analysis with their own g’s? One number could be assigned to every car or airplane and life would be so much simpler for everybody. I even know what units could be used for their g’s: US dollars. Is price of cars g? Where does this obsession with reductionism come from among people who claim they study the most complex product of evolution? Where do they get this chutzpah from?

    If you get g from multiple tests battery, this g is not the best predictor that this battery of tests can produce of performance, success, earnings,… g is one of infinite numbers of possible linear combinations of the individual tests. In terms of PCA g is the one that maximizes the explained variance (Rayleigh quotient). But if you want to use the same tests and predict job success a different linear combination of tests will maximize this prediction and it won’t be g. Furthermore it will depend on what is your sample of subjects on whom you are doing the predicting. If the sample will contain more people who do jobs involving mathematics than writing you will used different linear combination of tests than for the sample where there is more writers than mathematicians or musicians and neither of them will be g, though, yes g will correlate with them.

    If we asked each IT department to produce and AI machine and teach it and then sent it to AI Olympiad where the machines would be subjected to various tests including Raven matrices or Binet and so on we would get also some g and decide the winner with the highest g. But if we kept adding new tests to the battery of test the g would keep changing and there would be shuffling of winners. Until the AI Machine from the Moscow University constructed by Karlin would get pissed off (an obvious sign of intelligence) and killed all the other machines with a laser gun (important evolutionary function). Certainly we would not be able to come with g for that scenario but we would have a winner nevertheless. Evolution is not driven by g.

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

    Where does this obsession with reductionism come from among people who claim they study the most complex product of evolution?

    The lust for power, and hence the drive to give every member of society precise numerical coordinates within a rigid hierarchy.

    If I know your g, and if your g is lower than my g, or at least if I can make you think that perhaps your g is lower than my g and certainly lower than the g of the people I speak for, then I can put you firmly and forever in your place.

    Where do they get this chutzpah from?

    It’s not chutzpah, its just what they are paid to do.

    The modern university is not a self-governing community of scholars, it is a government-funded and directed bureaucracy. It could never happen today that a scholar, an Isaac Newton for example, would be permitted to confront a government hatchet man such as the psychopathic opportunist Judge Jeffreys. Professors do what professors are paid to do, which is to figure out how to make billionaires live for ever, invent drugs to increase the profits of big pharma, and devise better means for controlling people’s minds and sidelining or killing those who will not respond to command.

    Today, the slightest deviation from political correctness by a James D. Watson or anyone else in academia receives the brutal treatment meted out to the harmless simpleton and Nobel prize winner, Sir Tim Hunt, not only by the scumbag provost of University College London, Professor Michael Arthur, but even by the President of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, who shared with Hunt the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Sir Paul showed not the slightest hesitation in giving Hunt a knee in the groin, the Society “distancing” itself from the hapless boob, and booting him from a Royal Society committee.

    The only real hope for a free society may indeed be the Karlin AI machine with a very powerful laser.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @utu
  305. utu says:
    @utu

    While losing, res, did you look through your vast book resources for why 0,1,2 and not 0,1,2,3? Why 4 alleles are not considered? Apparently not only I had this question:

    https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/37020/why-do-almost-all-snps-have-two-alleles
    But there are 4 common nucleotides, A, T, C, and G. Why wouldn’t it be common to have 3 or 4 alleles at a certain location? The only way this seems possible to me is if strand is ignored, and so at any given location “A” and “T” are considered the same allele and “C” and “G” are considered the same allele. Is this the case, or am I misunderstanding things.

    This guy asks a right question but he is off on his speculative answer and those who responded to him on this thread are common obfuscators who just can’t say “I do not know.”

    For a locus to be considered an SNP in the first place at least 1% of the whole world population must possess there another allele than the majority. If everybody had the same A, T, C, or G value there the locus would have no predictive powers to account for any differences in any trait. There is not point of having a column in the matrix A (y=Ax of Hsu) constant. I suspect that 4 alleles must be very very infrequent though technically not precluded from occurring as far as I can see. 3 alleles are probably also infrequent but occurring.

    The coding of A, T, C, or G into 0,1,2,3 can be arbitrary for any SNP in mathematizing DNA to trait predictor function. This means that for one SNP A=0, T=1, C=2 and G=3 while for another SNP it could be A=2, T=3 C=0 and G=1. The polynomial Hsu’s formula (8) does not care.

    Anyway, if they ever run in to SNPs with 4 alleles then the 2 order 2D polynomial Hsu’s formula (8) will not be enough to account for dominant/recessive interactions between SNP’s.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @res
  306. utu says:
    @utu

    The “While losing”, obviously should be “While loling. ” The spell check did that.

  307. res says:
    @utu

    did you look through your vast book resources for why 0,1,2 and not 0,1,2,3? Why 4 alleles are not considered? Apparently not only I had this question:

    Covered by my comment 245. Which was a reply to you. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

    And if you want to handle the tri-allelic case 0, 1, 2, 3 does not work. With 3 alleles (call them a, b, c) you have 6 possible combinations: aa, ab, ac, bb, bc, cc. And that can’t be represented by a single number. There you really do need more variables.

    This paper found about half a percent of SNP sites were tri-allelic in a fairly small Chinese sample: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ahg.12114/abstract

    This link cites rs2063690 as a quad-allelic SNP: https://macarthurlab.org/2014/11/18/a-guide-to-the-exome-aggregation-consortium-exac-data-set/
    and goes on to assert “approximately ~7% of ExAC sites are now multi-allelic, and that fraction will grow as our sample size increases.”

    Of course the important question to consider is what kind of population frequency do these additional alleles have? Are they really worth the effort to include in the analysis?

    It’s cute how you try to make fun of my ability to marshal the research literature in support of my arguments. It also makes you look like a very unserious person.

  308. utu says:

    And if you want to handle the tri-allelic case 0, 1, 2, 3 does not work. With 3 alleles (call them a, b, c) you have 6 possible combinations: aa, ab, ac, bb, bc, cc. And that can’t be represented by a single number. There you really do need more variables.

    0, 1, 2, 3 – implies four alleles but you talk about three.

    that can’t be represented by a single number – No it can, by your approach and the 5th degree polynomial which sucks. Or by 2D polynomial with terms x, y, xy, x^2,y^2 for three alleles and extra cubic terms four four alleles. So you are right that 4 alleles can’t be represent by the form available in Hsu’s formula (8). It is all in my last two , three comments. It seem you still do not get the math of the formula (8).

    Thanks for the links and the links in comment #254 to multi allele SNPs issue. So it is pretty much as I thought. And Hsu does use only 0,1,2 because 4 allele cases are rare and if they were not host formula (8) would have to be expanded to cubic mixed terms.

    very unserious person. No, you are wrong. I am very serious. A sycophant often mistakes irreverence for the luck of seriousness. I am just irreverent and not awe at all.

  309. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    OT: There is one point of the IQ business that I could not crack and expose its weakness. This the heritability issue. The twin studies clearly are onto something. I haven’t found the killer critique of these studies yet. Even the laughable fact or factoid that divorce supposedly has 50% heritability is not good enough. See Jay Joseph book:

    https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Twin-Studies-Reassessment-Behavioral/dp/113869892X

    Recently however I realized that the problem as it often is the case is buried and hidden in early assumptions that everybody accepted and forgot about them. This is the sleight of hand. The assumption is that variance is the sum of genetic G and environmental E variances. Everybody makes this assumption:

    V=V(G)+V(E)

    This assumption allows one to arrive at commonly used in twin studies Falconer’s formula H^2=2(r_mz-r_dz) for heritability.

    However, when G and E interact in “production” of a given trait the partition of variance must be different and it turns out not unique which is the crux of the matter. One can write that

    V=V(G)+V(E&G) or V=V(E)+V(G&E)

    where V(E&G) and V(G&E) are reminders both depending on G and E that are left after the maximum variance that can be attributed to genes is removed (the first case) or the maximum variance attributed to environment is removed (the second case). Neither of these formulas allows us to derive Falconer’s formula.

    We define heritability as V(G)/V. Let us define “environmentality” as V(E)/V. The sum of them is no longer 1 because V≠V(G)+V(E) which goes against the commonly accepted assumption.

    What does it mean? If we estimate heritability V(G)/V say using SNP’s like Hsu and say, obtain result of 60% it does not mean that there is 40% of “environmentality” because heritability plus “environmentality” is not equal to 100% anymore. The sum is actually larger than 100%. So the result of 60% explains less than “60%” in common understanding because there is more than “100%” to explain. If we could measure environment mathematically like genes and use it to explain variance by similar method like that of Hsu we may obtain that “environmentally” say, is 55% . In common understanding one would conclude that heritability then is 45%. Would this conclusion be wrong? Is heritability 60% or 45%? Basically while we have a definition of heritability as ratio of variances this definition is not enforceable in data and measurements because we cannot really define V(G) uniquely. Because we can define it as either

    V(G)=V-V(E&G) or V(G)=V -V(E)=V(G&E)

    and V(G)’s from the two formulas are not equal.

    Mathematically it can be stated as follows. Say you have f(x,y) function in 2D XxY domain. Find two functions g(x) and h(y) that minimize the following RMS metric:

    ||f(x,y)-g(x)|| and ||f(x,y)-h(y)||

    and you will find out that for most functions variances V(f)≠V(g)+V(h).

    When f is symmetric, i.e., f(x,y)=f(y,x) than g and h are identical though still it won’t imply that V(f)=V(g)+V(h).

    When is f(x,y) bilinear then V(f)=V(g)+V(h). This is the case commonly but implicitly assume in heritability studies. The assumption however is unwarranted.

  310. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    One more point. When we hear that heritability of IQ is 60% and thus only 40% of variance is explained by environment this is not true. This is their sleight of hand. Because it is more than likely that more than 40% of variance can be explained by environment. So, yes, their heritability as they define it might be 60%, though certainly Falconer’s formula is not exact, but it does mean that environment can explain only 40%.

    We can’t calculate or measure how much variance can environment explain because we can’t perform the same experiments, where we can keep environment fixed and measurable as they can perform on genes. We would need Dr. Mengele for it.

    So the statement that heritability is 60% and environment can explain 60% of variance is not contradictory; it can actually be true.

    I hope that this changes a perspective how to look at the statements and numbers flowing from genetic determinists.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @CanSpeccy
  311. @utu

    IQ is itself a cultural product as blue eyes is a long term (or not so long) bio-cultural product. If you have a society that is selecting people with scholastic/semantic skills so in long or not so long term (depending the levels of selective pressures) we will have a variable correspondence between people and societal requirements to be minimally “successful”/adapted. In the same way a westerners may cannot be capable to out perform inuits or aboriginals in their daily tasks/evolutionary requirements it’s must be true for both of this groups
    But civilization tends to mean a cultural accumulation because it’s reflects humans outperforming their natural environmental challenges so we can conclude that while it’s hard for inuits outperform British people in their own environment the opposite is likely to be true.

    Many of this “environmentality” is intrinsic to prolonged or delayed bio-cognitive human development as well to IQ. But if language (verbal skills are basal for human intelligence) is already hardware as well some very instinctive non-verbal proclivities, so those who are better in verbal skills since early age at least to increase their vocabulary and understanding of words will be good in IQ-tasks.

    About British versus Inuit. It’s obvious if we put random British people in inuilands without previous or gradual adaptation (what’s really happened with inuits) so most them will perish but a group of people with avg IQ around 100 and with certain previously required psychological traits to this type of environment it’s likely will be perfectly capable to adapt as inuits does even at the point to outperform them.

    Many of this differences between identical twins is due by natural variance that also happen with them if they are not clones (same persons).

    If genetics can’t explain or determine human behavior why inuits for example in different environments cannot adapt so wel as they do in their original environments?? Blame the whitey??
    Well*

  312. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Your math is above my head. Your conclusions are correct, though, according to this article, which indicates that in some circumstances the contribution of genes to measured IQ of twins can be virtually zero!

    The big piece on this topic seems to be the 1997 paper by Feldman et al. in Science Mag. but the silly buggers at the triple AS won’t even let you see the abstract without paying for it. In fact I have paid for it, having been a member of the association for over 40 years, including the date of publication of the Feldman paper, but having cancelled my subscription because Science Mag had a crooked editor, I am now denied access to an article I have already paid for: pathetic.

    But in any case, it needs to be remembered that all these studies are concerned, not with intelligence, but with IQ, which is what the rather dim-witted profession of so-called psychology has come up with: a linear scale upon which it is supposed to be possible to directly compare the intelligence of Einstein with that of Shakespeare, or of Jesus with that of Adolph Hitler.

    • Replies: @res
    , @utu
  313. res says:
    @CanSpeccy

    One thing worth noting about that first study is it had a very different racial balance from the overall US: “The twins were classified as 43% White, 54% Black, and 3% “other.””

    Another thing I found interesting is that the low heritability seems to be caused by both increased DZ correlation and decreased MZ correlation. I wonder why that might be. And how well it replicates.

    It is also informative to analyze the data more traditionally. We dichotomized the pairs into those above the median SES and those below the median SES and used random-effects analysis of variance (Guo & Wang, 2002) to estimate the intraclass correlations for MZ and DZ twins in the two SES groups. In the low-SES group, the intraclass correlation was .63 for DZ twins and .68 for MZ twins, consistent with h2 of .10 and c2 of .58; for the high-SES group, the DZ twin correlation was .51 and the MZ twin correlation was .87, consistent with h2 of .72 and c2 of .15.

    A poorly formatted version of your second link is available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13818005_Twin_Studies_Heritability_and_Intelligence

    It is a series of letters questioning the validity of twin study results along with a response. I think it is a reach to refer to it as “The big piece on this topic”.

    And of course a CanSpeccy comment would not be complete without some rhetoric like: “rather dim-witted profession of so-called psychology”

    P.S. here is a UK study which looks somewhat similar to the first study: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030320

    Some rather different conclusions:

    Results

    We found greater variance in intelligence in low-SES families, but minimal evidence of GxE interaction across the eight ages. A power calculation indicated that a sample size of about 5000 twin pairs is required to detect moderation of the genetic component of intelligence as small as 0.25, with about 80% power – a difference of 11% to 53% in heritability, in low- (−2 standard deviations, SD) and high-SES (+2 SD) families. With samples at each age of about this size, the present study found no moderation of the genetic effect on intelligence. However, we found the greater variance in low-SES families is due to moderation of the environmental effect – an environment-environment interaction.

    Conclusions

    In a UK-representative sample, the genetic effect on intelligence is similar in low- and high-SES families. Children’s shared experiences appear to explain the greater variation in intelligence in lower SES.

    One nice thing about this study is they looked at IQ at a variety of ages rather than just age 7. This study also included over 10,000 twin pairs in contrast to the 320 twin pairs in the Turkheimer study.

    Here are their comparisons of the top/bottom SES A/C/E components for age 9 IQ. It is interesting that all of the results are around 0.4 or a bit lower for A.

    That ~0.4 seems a bit low compared to the ~0.5 at age 9 estimate we see at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23919982
    But Turkheimer’s 0.72 and 0.10 numbers are both dramatically different from the ~0.4 at age 7 shown at that link.

  314. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    Thanks for the link to the Feldman paper at ResearchGate. Actually, I found that myself but I’m damned if I will create an account with an outfit that has created a barrier to scientific communication. Why the Hell don’t they simply allow open access? Do they think they can eventually monetize such a crappy network, or what?

    But thanks also for the other info. which I will study.

    As for:

    And of course a CanSpeccy comment would not be complete without some rhetoric like: “rather dim-witted profession of so-called psychology”

    I mean, just look at the history of it:

    Freudian psychoanalysis, aptly described as one of the strangest relics of the scientific age;

    Watsonian and Skinnerian behaviorism, which denied the reality of the human mind, and held bombing the shit out Vietnam was part of a rational policy of operant conditioning;

    and today the absurdity of IQism, the idea that all minds from Shakespeare to Isaac Newton, and from Jesus Christ to Adolph Hitler can be rated on a linear scale, from dumb to smart.

    Is there not something rather dim-witted, at least excessively gullible, about serial believers in such bunk?

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  315. @CanSpeccy

    all minds from Shakespeare to Isaac Newton, and from Jesus Christ to Adolph Hitler can be rated on a linear scale, from dumb to smart

    IQ is a tool to make predictions. Therefor it’s not that useful as soon as we talk about the past.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  316. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Dieter Kief

    IQ is a tool to make predictions.

    You think? Or maybe to create an authoritarian, top-down hierarchy.

    Anyhow, it doesn’t make good predictions as the Terman study proved by excluding from among the selected prospective geniuses the only two candidates who would go on to win a Nobel prize.

  317. utu says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Let m give another try.

    While i do not think the twin studies and heritability issue can be completely obliterated I have found a significant omission that may change how we look at heritability and the results. It starts with the commonly used and seemingly undisputed assumption that variance V of some trait can be partition into the sum of variances of genes V(G) and environment V(E), i.e. V=V(G)+V(E). From this assumption the Falconer’s formula H^2=2(r_mz-r_dz) is derived. W/o this assumption the Falconer’s formula must have an additional term that cannot be easily estimated.

    In reality genes and environment interact and for this reason the variance cannot be partition in this way. To extract the V(G) it has to be defined first and there is no unique way of doing it. While the heritability definition as V(G)/V appears to be sound, it is not because we really do not know which V(G), according to which definition to use.

    The consequence of this finding is that when we hear that heritability was measured to be, say 60% it is implied that environment can explain only 40% of variance. This is not necessarily so, because environment may explain actually more than 40% in this case if we use different approach. So for instance a statement that heritability is 60% and environment also explains 60% is not self contradictory because it actually can be true. The sum of heritability and ‘environmentability’ is actually greater than 100%.

    While this insight does not necessarily change the facts on the ground it offers another perspective and substantially weakens the rhetorical strength of the statements made by those who keep pushing gene deterministic narrative. If you guys claim you can explain 60% of variance with genes it does not preclude a possibility that environment can also explain 60% of variance. Basically this would be the main consequence of my insight.

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

    Yes, although numerate, I am not mathematical, my trouble in childhood having been, perhaps, distraction by the question of what x and y really are. But in any case, to understand anything quantitative I need to make it concrete, which in this case is not, I think, so difficult.

    Take a child, a boy, just over a year old and notice how his attention will tend (in many cases, anyhow) to focus on mechanical devices, or electronic devices with buttons or switches that produce effects when pushed or pressed or yanked. As a consequence of this reaction, parents or other carers are quite likely to produce more gadgets, toys, etc. that provide similar distraction. As a consequence, an understanding of cause and effect dawns.

    Thus we have a genetic predisposition to a certain type of behavior (absent, according to my observation, or certainly less noticeable, in the behavior of the boy’s sister) which modifies the environment to facilitate additional behavior to which there is this particular genetic predisposition. The behavior modifies the brain, giving rise to competence that is measurable as an aspect of intelligence.

    This would be a clear case of genotype modifying the environment through the regulation of behavior, the brain (intelligence) thus being affected by not only G and E, but also G by E. So if that’s a valid way of looking at the effect you describe, then there is no question that the effect is real and that it can arise in a multitude of different ways.

    The fact that, at the bottom of the social heap, genes seem to have less or even no effect on IQ test results suggests that the G by E interaction is vital, i.e., without nurturing, intelligence will not develop normally, whatever genetic potential there may be.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  319. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    The idea that intellectual development depends to a large degree on appropriate modifications of the environment in response to genetically driven development (environmental modifications that facilitates further development) can explain a lot.

    For example, the persistence of elites and elite families. Princes, for example, have traditionally been instructed by the wise, men (in most cases) whose task it would be to observe the developing intellect and feed it the challenges and opportunities to facilitate full expression of genetic potentialities. The same, would be true of most elite families. One on one tutoring, in England, for example, either at home (amusingly described by the late Dutchess of Devonshire, Deborah Mitford (née)), or at one of the famous “public” (i.e., private) schools such as Eton (attended by most British Prime Ministers) and then Oxford, or in the case of Winston Churchill (Harrow, where under the tutelage of a gifted teacher, he learned to construct a sound English sentence).

    The G on E effect, which is to say the effect of a nurturing response to innately driven development, likely explains most if not all of inter-cultural and racial differences in IQ test scores. Everyone knows about Jewish mothers and Tiger moms, but we hear much less of middle class Europeans pushing their children at anything other than baseball, hockey, etc., or, more rarely, music. And as for African American households, the indications are that many kids receive rather little intellectual nurturing from anyone.

    • Agree: utu
  320. utu says:

    thus being affected by not only G and E, but also G by E. So if that’s a valid way of looking at the effect you describe, then there is no question that the effect is real and that it can arise in a multitude of different ways.

    Yes, G and E are entangled. Their combined effect cannot be reduced to the sum of separate effects. And because of this when we ask the questions how much variance of a trait in population can be explained by G alone or E alone the questions cannot be unambiguously answered and they are not complementary. So it is possible that G and E separately can explain more than 50% of variance at the same time and there is no contradiction in this. Heritability and ‘environmentality’ do not add up to 100%.

    In the information war that is waged by genetic determinists their triumphalism is meant to make those who favor alternative narratives abandon any hope. So they say genes can explain 60% of variance and thus genes are more important where they imply that environment can explain only 40%. To which the insight I had is allowing the opponents to say: no so fast Jose, it is possible that environment can explain also 60% so in our narrative environment is more important.

    Furthermore this observation puts in question the validity of the Falconer’s formula on which all heritability studies based on twins and relatives are based. However I do not know yet how to estimate the error associated with application of the formula.

    I am doing the dirty laundry of the stuff they swept under the bed mostly by analyzing mathematical methods and assumptions they claim to use. So we already know that g is not what they want everybody else to believe. We know that correlations linking IQ and life outcomes are elevated by questionable methods of range restriction correction. And now we know that heritability does not imply that ‘environmentalibility’=100%-heritability.

    The problem is that the IQ-ist are not really engaged by their opponents who have too much contempt for them to be willing to talk to the IQ-ist. So the IQ-ist create their own journals where they are not really challenged or scrutinized and thus get away with a lot of nonsense. Okhrana in Russia made similar mistake of ignoring the Bolsheviks instead of having them shot on the spot.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @reiner Tor
  321. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Okhrana in Russia made similar mistake of ignoring the Bolsheviks instead of having them shot on the spot.

    You’re saying that the Tsarist regime failed because it was not sufficiently totalitarian, which is true of all regimes prior to the modern age. But Marconi, Bell, Tesla, Nobel and a few others invented the means to create the totalitarian state, means that cannot be uninvented. With those tools, the state naturally acquired, first, unchallenged police power over the entire populace, and now increasingly unchallenged mind control.

    The age of the independent human being is over. We are now the Borg. The age of the independent thinker is over. The world has become the plaything of a few psychopaths who lucked out in the scramble for power. They are served by millions upon millions of intellectual nonentities in government, in academia, the media, wherever the state needs assert itself. The IQists are merely among the many pathetic creatures who now occupy the universities, the schools, and the other agencies of government, their role to drive the desired memes into the minds of an ever more gullible public.

    That, of course, is only to reiterate what George Orwell anticipated 70 years ago. Only in detail, it seems, did Orwell get it wrong, the gaps in his dystopian vision being mostly filled by Aldous Huxley.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  322. utu says:

    You’re saying that the Tsarist regime failed because it was not sufficiently totalitarian, which is true of all regimes prior to the modern age.

    Okhrana in 1900 had 1000 secret policemen only for 140 million country. Very totalitarian.

    all regimes prior to the modern age

    Yes. Personally I feel nostalgia, if there is such a thing like longing for times before you were born, for Austro-Hungary. I love literature form this period.

    I think the good old world ended with WWI. Two powers emerged: Americans and Bolsheviks as two sides of the same coin. The period 1870-1914 seems to be idyllic in Europe.

    • Agree: AP
  323. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @CanSpeccy

    Yes, modernization has robbed the world of much of its enchantment. And the effect was noted at least a hundred years before WW1. Cobden described the burgeoning city of London as the Great Wen (or pustule) and around the same time Thomas Carlyle was bemoaning the mechanization of the world.

    I suspect it is the truly enchanting images of Russian country life during the 19th century, as presented by Russia’s great novelists, that account in large part for the high incidence of Russophilia among Western intellectuals. However, there were in reality many downsides to that life: toothache, for example, which could only be treated by extraction without anaesthetic, uncontrollable epidemics, grinding poverty and near universal ignorance among the masses, and horrible conditions of employment for the industrial working class.

    Still, the 19th Century was the great age of liberalism, an era of reform and the expectation of reform everlasting, whereas today, all we can expect is the ever tightening grip of corrupt, fascistic bureaucracy. In fact, the end of humanity people as we understand them, to be replaced by, if the IQist here have their way, genetically improved humans with IQ’s of over 1000, or possibly just machines with AI.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  324. @CanSpeccy

    In fact, the end of humanity people as we understand them, to be replaced by, if the IQist here have their way, genetically improved humans with IQ’s of over 1000, or possibly just machines with AI.

    Which is pretty terrible, but so does the increasingly likely alternative: a world run by algorithms of dubious intelligence, made to conform to maximize the stimuli of dopamine of the maximum number of participants/viewers, for no particular “elite” purpose but the blind pursuit of Mammon to itself.

    The only more horrible to me to imagine becoming a nameless cog in a machine with a will, is to become a nameless cog in a machine without purpose or meaning, that simply churns us all forth, semi-drugged and distracted to endless arguments, while ultimately depriving us of any real agency or power, while we merrily pipe along in deliriums and crush ourselves in joyful competitiveness to better degrade ourselves for the purpose of this machine.

    Toothache extraction without painkillers seem much more acceptance in comparison.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @CanSpeccy
  325. @utu

    The problem is that the IQ-ist are not really engaged by their opponents who have too much contempt for them to be willing to talk to the IQ-ist. So the IQ-ist create their own journals where they are not really challenged or scrutinized and thus get away with a lot of nonsense. Okhrana in Russia made similar mistake of ignoring the Bolsheviks instead of having them shot on the spot.

    I’m happy to know that you’re wishing to have all members of the vaguely defined “IQist” group shot on the spot.

    • Replies: @utu
  326. @Daniel Chieh

    The most likely outcome is an AI going haywire, for example killing all humanity to increase the production of paper clips until it all falls apart. But it’s also possible that it will be just producing ever better virtual reality until all biological humans get trapped in it, and then it all falls apart after the death of the last human.

    There must be an explanation for Fermi’s Paradox, and looking around the world I tend to think pessimistic explanations are more likely.

    • Agree: AP
  327. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    There must be an explanation for Fermi’s Paradox, and looking around the world I tend to think pessimistic explanations are more likely.

    Space is a big place. We have, as yet, hardly looked. And in any case, the aliens may already be here: they may be us: aliens looking for an escape from the techno-tyranny of an advanced civilization, perhaps. And now it’s going to rat shit all over again.

  328. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Daniel Chieh

    The best hope for a humane humanity may be the creation of a system of reserves, where humans would live under various cultural systems of a basically static kind.

    This seems a reasonable proposition. A techno civilization needs no mass of humanity, and would logically, therefore, massively downsize the world’s population, to a few tens of millions. Then, for those who wished it, there would be plenty of space for, say, a European mediaeval reserve in north western Europe to accommodate several million people (the population of Elizabethan England). Africans could opt to return to tribal life, while Asia could once again become a nearly empty land, but with a scattering of settlements for Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

    Muslims, and Jews, and fundamentalist Christians might be problem with their innate tendency to imperialism, but the techno-civilizational authorities should be able to contain them — the odd synthetic lightning bolt accompanied by the voice of Yahweh, Allah or the Holy Ghost should keep them in order.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  329. utu says:
    @reiner Tor

    I am just not good when it comes to gradation of analogies and metaphors. I tend to err on the side of hyperbola. Reeducation camps would do, I guess.

    • LOL: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  330. Factorize says:

    No one has yet suggested that in the Terman study the real treatment group were those not included in the study. Those in the study were the controls. This would help explain the paradox of the only two Nobel prize winners not being included in the study. If they had been, they probably would have won their Nobels. Of course, we would need a time machine or parallel universe to prove such a conjecture.

    How surprising is it that those publicly recognized as being of extreme intellectual ability did not go on to achieve anything of outstanding note? Why would they need to? They won the race, and then suffered from Winner’s Curse. Winning the race meant that it was not necessary to accomplish anything further. Didn’t they win?

    This is exactly why those who did not suffer such a curse were the ultimate winners. It is a simple example of regression discontinuity design. It also helps to explain why most of the most successful
    in Silicon Valley never completed the last academic credential that they were working towards. If they
    had, then what purpose would further real world success serve for them psychologically?

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  331. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize

    How surprising is it that those publicly recognized as being of extreme intellectual ability did not go on to achieve anything of outstanding note? Why would they need to? They won the race, and then suffered from Winner’s Curse.

    Well there you have it. A conclusive argument from an IQist as to why the IQ business should be abandoned, to avoid damaging the personal prospects and social benefits of our best and brightest.

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

    And

    Yet, an even more powerful force driving me to the unlocking of the Pandora’s box of genetic self-knowledge is to know who I am. Without knowing the code one cannot be confident that one’s self-perception reflects objective truth. The code should allow us to better match people’s genotype to an appropriate environment, leading to happier more productive people.

  333. Factorize says:

    CanSpeccy, I did not intend this to be a conclusive argument, but instead merely a possibly testable hypothesis. I expected that someone might offer an alternate suggestion than simply accept it without rebuttal.

    My suggestion is not without backing from prior research. For example, my idea could be understood within the context of extrinsic motivation. Research has found that when people receive rewards for their studies etc. they become less engaged in these activities. So, if you were to take highly motivated physics students, their intrinsic motivation would decline and their extrinsic motivation would increase, if you were to pay them. At some point these students would no longer have any interest in physics and would only salivate if given a reward. Paying them to do what they loved doing would result in them not loving it anymore and eventually they would give up on it.

    This has clear parallels to the Terman study. The subjects in the study received a range of rewards and so the results are consistent with the research.

    On a personal I can confirm the power of this idea in my own life. At some level I have experienced a similar type of rejection as occurred with those who were left out of the Terman study. As a consequence I have sought to vindicate my honor by excelling at online courses that I have enrolled in. I have achieved levels of very extreme accomplishment. The internet offers unlimited resources to find detailed answers for any question that is asked or software for any task.

    For example, I took a beginner’s German course in which my tutor was noticably impressed with my performance. I bought software that I used to endlessly repeat the German OW sound.

    If I had simply followed the official rules none of this would have been necessary. I could have declared victory and would never have needed to continue on with one extreme success after another. Recently I was told by a marker who marked all final exams for a subject that I took that the level of knowledge that I demonstrated during my final exam was the highest that had ever been encountered. Of note is that the courses that I have taken through this online University are those that I would have previously considered my weaker subjects.

    My motivation for success is actually powered both by my strong wish to vindicate myself and from a very strong intrinsic interest in the courses that I am taking. Strangely not so long ago I was sent an offer by the uni to reward me for my achievements. I think it was wise to decline this offer.

    Even a century into the psychometric era, we are still not sure how to fully liberate the abilities of those who possess very high ability. This should not be deemed a damning critique of psychometrics, but instead simply a reflection that human psychology truly is not entirely what we expect it to be. Psychometrics really is more an exploration of a strange world. We should be observers in this realm and not enter it with preconceived notions of what we will find.

    It surprised me how poorly our society has managed the high end talent in the community. High g is a treasure that we should nurture. The fact that this largely is not true, is more a reflection of the lack of g in the broader community than an indictment of those of very high abilities.

  334. Factorize says:

    CanSpeccy, the fact that the Terman study considered, though ultimately rejected, two Nobel prize winners could be understood as a vindication of psychometrics.

    The Terman study included about 1500 very highly intelligent young people about half of whom were female and many of them lived as housewives. This should not be unexpected given the era. I do not think it reasonable to expect that some other non-g correlated selection would have identified two other Nobel prize winners.

    • Replies: @James Thompson
  335. @Factorize

    A good predictor remains such even when it is not a perfect predictor.

    Steve Hsu has some interesting posts on the Terman study

    This one goes directly to the “you didn’t identify the top performer” argument, and it one way of depicting the general principle that one can have a useful predictor even though it is not perfect. That is the argument I find strongest, and most obvious, but the other explanations may be helpful.

    http://infoproc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/success-ability-and-all-that.html

    The next one looks at IQ versus personality dimensions

    http://infoproc.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/earnings-effects-of-personality.html

    The last one is about Nobel Laureates who claim, or of whom it is said, to have low IQ. It is typical Jensen: clear and informative. Interestingly, he got one of Shockley, Crick and Feynman to take another Terman test, and that one got a very high score. Could one dig that up 20 years later? By the way, Shockley would not talk to anyone until they took an IQ test. Rude, but effective.

    http://infoproc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/jensen-on-g-and-genius.html

    Talking about Nobel Laureates:

    A physicist of my acquaintance who made a habit of inviting Nobel Laureates to his departmental seminars found that they often doubted that they had deserved the accolade, and feared that the assembled physicists would spot the error of attribution the moment they began their lecture. Driving them to the department, he had to do his best to calm their nerves. So, even among this select crew, there are orders of precedence. Mercifully, as a visiting psychologist following on from the Nobel Laureates I was spared any such harsh evaluation, and accepted for my peripheral entertainment value.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @res
  336. Polymaths are extremely rare or are a true myth, no there such thing someone who grasp everything in highest levels possible. Indeed seems many if not most geniuses has been known not just by their highest accomplishments but also by their considerable mistakes, some of them which are funny by their complete lack of understanding. Geniuses are abherrant version of all sort of normal human-types.

    IQists believe most of high IQ people are polymaths.

    Indeed is more common we find people with ASSYMETRICAL cognitive profile than with Super symmetrical. And don’t forget psychological part of intelligence, where also will there assymmetry.

    Most if not everyone already have their cognitive strenghts and weakness and this mean something about their genetic and neurophysiological landscapes.

    Cognitive assymmetry is a extremely common feature not just among humans but also considerably among nonhuman living beings.

    The difference is the majority at least among a neurotypical population tend to have implicit assymetrical cognitive and psychological profiles.

    Adaptation itself push for specialization.

    Factorize is only correct when he say the next stage of human evolution would be the creation of universal smarter ”man”. In the same way most of all healthy human beings already born hardwiredly capable to learn quickly a language in the ”future” most healthy humans beings will born hardwiredly capable to learn quickly, already in the first childhood, many other human cultural knowledges, relevant ones.

    But i believe the two most important features of human intelligence: creativity and rationality [don't confuse it with logic or pseudo-psychopathy, frozen affective empathy and using only cognitive empathy] must be universalized.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @CanSpeccy
  337. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    Shockley would not talk to anyone until they took an IQ test. Rude, but effective.

    Confirming that he was, in most respects, a Yahoo and a moron!

    • Replies: @James Thompson
    , @utu
  338. res says:
    @James Thompson

    The last one is about Nobel Laureates who claim, or of whom it is said, to have low IQ. It is typical Jensen: clear and informative. Interestingly, he got one of Shockley, Crick and Feynman to take another Terman test, and that one got a very high score. Could one dig that up 20 years later? By the way, Shockley would not talk to anyone until they took an IQ test. Rude, but effective.

    Do you have a reference for Shockley requiring an IQ test? I would be interested in more background on that.

    Regarding Jensen/Shockley/Crick/Feynman, this 1971 letter from Crick seems relevant: https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/ResourceMetadata/SCBBNM

    Here is a Shockley/Feynman connection: http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/shockley/First%20Impression%20of%20Shockley.html
    They apparently had a common mentor: Philip McCord Morse https://books.google.com/books?id=cRb_qzEwWWAC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=shockley+feynman+friends

    This makes me think Jensen was talking about Feynman and Shockley. It would be interesting to find out the results of that test.

    Emil has the full PDF of that Jensen interview at http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Discussions%20of%20Genius%20-%20Interview%20with%20Arthur%20Jensen.pdf
    It is also available at https://www.slideshare.net/usavel/genius-intelligents

    The essay Jensen referred to is http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-08230-023
    PDF at http://arthurjensen.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Giftedness-and-Genius-Crucial-Differences-1996-by-Arthur-Robert-Jensen.pdf
    Jensen mentions Eysenck’s psychoticism/creativity idea in favorable terms there. He also mentions Crick and Shockley briefly (but not in a way bearing on above).

    Dr. Thompson, have you written about either of those documents? I would be interested in reading your thoughts.

    Talking about Nobel Laureates:

    A physicist of my acquaintance who made a habit of inviting Nobel Laureates to his departmental seminars found that they often doubted that they had deserved the accolade, and feared that the assembled physicists would spot the error of attribution the moment they began their lecture. Driving them to the department, he had to do his best to calm their nerves. So, even among this select crew, there are orders of precedence. Mercifully, as a visiting psychologist following on from the Nobel Laureates I was spared any such harsh evaluation, and accepted for my peripheral entertainment value.

    Both the Dunning-Kruger effect and “imposter syndrome” are real IMHO.

    To be clear, the particular aspect of the Dunning-Kruger effect to which I refer is the tendency of the highest ability people to underestimate themselves. Not the more commonly observed aspect of lower ability people overestimating themselves:

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @James Thompson
  339. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    Agree.

    But the IQists will never admit that IQ fails to dictate ability in every sphere of mental activity.

    IQ is a real thing, they say, it is g, dammit.

    But the fact that g reflects only a very limited correlation among mental faculties or that there may be multiple common factors, g 1, 2, 3, x, y, and z, is something IQists will not acknowledge or cannot understand. And indeed if they did acknowledge it, then their racket would be bust. No longer could they claim that by measuring IQ they have the measure of the man, and the key to his future.

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

    Polymaths are extremely rare or are a true myth

    Those with an exceptional memory, may if they work at it, take on the appearance at least of a polymath.

    The potential for a perfect memory may, according to the anecdotal evidence of Oliver Sachs, be almost universal, and can be unmasked, even in people of no exceptional ability, as the result of brain damage, or age-related mental deterioration, such that past experiences are relived with total clarity and detail.

    Presumably, such total recall is not generally useful. Indeed, is it not the case that great chess players, all of whom have near perfect memories at least of chess games, have been driven mad by the inability to escape their memories.

    My father, who had a superb memory, was all A’s at just about everything he did, including flying during WW2, but his mentality was so dominated by the linear logical that he was unable to entertain even the simplest hypothesis. Something was or it wasn’t. That it might be either was, to him, intolerable and unworthy of consideration. Thus polymathy has, I believe, its limits and a society in which everyone had an IQ of hundreds might constitute a very dull and unimaginative community.

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

    the tendency of the highest ability people to underestimate themselves.

    When you have a Nobel prize. LOL

    False modesty, my dear boy.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  342. @CanSpeccy

    I also find interesting why or how they consider one answer absolutely right-er than other of this cognitive tests, namely of multiple choices…. maybe instead lack of correct reasoning we are dealing with different cognitive styles/prefferences, and why they don’t ask for people who do this tests to develop their reasoning lines about how or why they choose this and not that answer…

  343. @CanSpeccy

    Yes, but polymaths must be super-thinkers too and not only super-memorizers. I think personality interfer in cognitive style/prefference but not the psychological state, i’m talking about personality and not temperament. I mean, two people with very very similar cognitive [innate] CONSTITUTION may have completely different cognitive STYLE/prefference due personality differences.

    Maybe too much convergently smart tends to work against cognitive plasticity/aka creativity. And convergence is basically perfectionist semantic memory, capacity to memorize very well most of informations.

    Seems more creative people tend to have problems with memory or it’s not super-functioning.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  344. Factorize says:

    Might someone on the thread help me?

    When I was a high-schooler, the primary reference for all of my courses was the textbook.
    For most courses I never consulted any other source. If a question were to be asked on an assignment that was not highly similar to the material in the textbook, then I would have found it difficult to find the correct answer.

    However, in this new age of infotechnology, questions on any assignment can be endlessly researched online. The internet resources are nearly unlimited. My online uni actually provides without charge a 20,000+ online journal database.

    What I am unsure about is why hasn’t there been more discussion of this development in the media space (including this blog)? With the resources that are now available to me, my intellectual reach has expanded enormously. If I had to guess, I would suggest that this has shifted my “intellectual ability” by 50 IQ points. I acknowledge that my g has remained unchanged, though my ability to research and formulate meaningful responses on a wide range of questions has changed enormously.
    My “intelligence” defined as an ability to make better sense of the world through the use of information tools has changed to a great extent, while my biological cognitive ability, g, has remained static.

    Those who are closer to the action must have noticed this change as well.
    High-schoolers of today have a much wider range of resources to draw on than their course textbook.
    Considering how changes in the informational and computer landscapes might influence the meaning of intelligence should be something of interest to psychometricians. It is strange to think that perhaps what might actually be a very large and important shift in the lived experience of intellectual functioning might simply be made to be invisible as relative positions remain unchanged even while the water level changes for all boats.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    , @James Thompson
  345. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Santoculto

    Yes, but polymaths must be super-thinkers too and not only super-memorizers.

    What is a super thinker? The rules of logic are rather limited in number, and are used quite competently by most people and by species other than man, e.g., chimps, dolphins, whales and elephants.

    The critical requirement for solving most problems is surely relevant information, which is why an exceptional memory is sufficient for very wide ranging competence — provided that the individual has wide ranging interests. However, if someone with a superb memory devotes all their time to chess or some other narrow focused activity, they will be, not a polymath, but a monomaniac.

    But the key to genius is surely neither analytical power nor memory, but the ability to put ideas together in novel configurations. This is the faculty of imagination that the IQ testers do not even claim to measure. It was in imagination that Einstein excelled, although his mathematical gifts seem to have been limited, so that he relied on friends (Grossman, and Goedel, for example) to help work out the mathematical presentation of his ideas.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
    , @utu
  346. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize

    Considering how changes in the informational and computer landscapes might influence the meaning of intelligence should be something of interest to psychometricians.

    A good book, or even better, a tutorial with a good teacher, is probably worth a thousand Internet articles and U-tube videos, and perhaps much more, since much of what is said on the Internet is not actually so. Certainly one needs to go about gathering information on the Internet with great caution.

    Since most of our knowledge today, unlike that of our ancestors, comes to us by way of ink on paper or pixels on a screen, rather from direct experience of the world, what everyone needs is an intensive training in epistemology.

    Even then, nothing inferred from a computer screen has the reliability of direct observation, so perhaps we are really less well aware of the nature of reality than were our ancestors who were without benefit of the Internet, television or the mass media.

    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
  347. @CanSpeccy

    What is a super thinker?

    Someone very capable to think/use/work with/ about memorized and novel informations and extract from them coherence and or simply precious grains of truth.

    However, if someone with a superb memory devotes all their time to chess or some other narrow focused activity, they will be, not a polymath, but a monomaniac.

    Ok, but i think polymath is something difficult to exist, it’s a myth based on the superficial idea that highly intelligent/higher IQ/cognitively intelligent people are insufferably smarter but there is something that is not tracked in IQistic radar: psychological weaknesses in-interaction with cognition.

    I believe by now we have two types of intellectual weaknesses: cognitive and psychological. Cognitive weaknesses is the most evident, it’s what we can’t have capacity to ”learn’. For example my virtually nonexistent spatial skills. But psychological weaknesses may have in every place even or specially in our cognitive strenghts. Our personality altering our perception.

    But the key to genius is surely neither analytical power nor memory, but the ability to put ideas together in novel configurations.

    I think it’s a combination of some of this three elements BUT what you call ”analytical power” seems is also very important for creativity, it’s another myth that highly creative people are not analytical, they tend to be both, very intuitive and very analytical. Just intuitive people may be very creative but not at genius levels.

    This is the faculty of imagination that the IQ testers do not even claim to measure.

    Because many them think it’s not even relevant.

    It was in imagination that Einstein excelled, although his mathematical gifts seem to have been limited, so that he relied on friends (Grossman, and Goedel, for example) to help work out the mathematical presentation of his ideas.

    Yes and his mathematical gifts had analytical nature. And in combination with imagination resulted in analytical activities. I think you’re going too much to inspiration-side of creativity at genius levels and forget the transpiration-side where cognitive skills as well in-combination with creativity is extremely important.

    I’m very ”creative”, of course not at genius levels, even near, but i know i’m quite obsessed with my narrow interests, maybe i’m monomaniacal too, and i spend big part of my day thinking in very playful/natural ways about my interests and it’s also mean i’m always analysing and re-analysing my ideas and thoughts and sometimes i have insights [most of them not so good].

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

    he relied on friends (Grossman, and Goedel, for example) to help work out the mathematical presentation of his ideas.

    Here is longer, still not complete, list of helpers:

    Ludwig Hopf
    Nathan Rosen
    Walther Mayer
    Valentine Bargmann
    Bruria Kaufman
    Otto Stern
    Cornelius Lanczos
    Jakob Grommer
    Banesh Hoffman
    Herman Müntz
    Marcel Grossmann

  349. Factorize says:

    CanSpeccy, thank you for your reply.
    I believe that this is an important topic and should be discussed.

    I kept my assignments from high school.
    There is an extremely large shift in quality in my recent uni assignments for which I had a internet access. Until now every question on every assignment for my online courses have been researched exhaustively.

    In an assignment from high school if I had been asked to discuss cancer. I might have went to the school library and have signed out possibly the only book on cancer that might have been published 5-10 or more years ago and perhaps have located a few general purpose science journals that might have a recent article on cancer.

    I am sure that any teacher who has witnessed this transition would verify the large shift that has occurred in the quality of student’s work through this changeover.

    When I was recently asked to discuss cancer in a recent online biology course I provided a highly elaborate description of current research with multiple contemporary references. With my journal access and the open access online resources I had access to many millions of articles about cancer in the comfort of my own home. I finished up my answer by challenging the superficial treatment of the topic as presented in the textbook and suggested a more compelling way to conceptualize cancer and proposed a more relevant treatment framework. This simply would not have been possible all those years earlier without current computer resources.

    Cancer is of high relevance.
    The ability to formulate meaningfully coherent opinions about how one might cope with such a challenge, if it were to arise, must at some level speak to the ability to adaptively manage one’s life (intelligence). From personal experience, I believe that my ability to adaptively such a challenge has been greatly transformed by the change in informational resources.

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

    Imagination is perhaps not a faculty in and of itself, but rather a response to curiosity. Some people just want to understand things, or they want to accomplish something — to entertain, to feed the starving, cure the sick, steal the crown jewels. It is the urge to know what is unknown, or do the impossible, that surely sets the imaginative mind in motion, configuring what is known in multiple ways and adding hypothetical elements, until some new, plausible view of the problem emerges.

    The IQ-ists, it seems lack that faculty. Challenge them in any way you want, but they will insist that IQ = intelligence. If someone scores in the top 1% on the numerical part of the IQ test and the bottom 1% on the verbal part of the test, they will say that person has an average IQ. Point out that that person is a mathematical star and a verbal moron, and they will say, no, IQ is a unitary thing, as proved by the existence of g.

    Point out that g explains little of the variation among scores on tests of different aspects of cognition and they will probably change the subject. That g could be due to something as trivial as the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere where the test happens to have been taken, or cerebral blood flow, or dietary iodine intake, or some one or a dozen other physiological or anatomical variables, and they will ignore you.

    In part, I suppose the IQists’ refusal to abandon their claim to be able to rate humanity from A plus genius to gamma minus moron is simply a matter of professional self-serving. But one has to wonder whether there is, well, a lack of imagination too.

  351. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Factorize

    Factorize,

    Your keenness to take advantage of the Internet to advance your studies is to be applauded. However, you should be careful not to become submerged by the sheer volume of data available. The Internet does undoubtedly provide you with access to a million scholarly journal articles about cancer or any other subjects about which you may wish to be informed, but you cannot read a million articles. At best, in a week or whatever time you have to compose an essay, you could read a dozen or so articles. And that is the challenge of the Internet, how to select what you really need. That is why a competent tutor can be invaluable: in directing you to what is critical, while sparing you from the morass of academic junk.

    Not that I would discourage you from delving into the literature on your own account. But it takes time to find your way around, to learn to distinguish sense from nonsense, to realize most of the literature is focused on trivial questions, badly posed, ineptly investigated, the findings poorly written up, the statistic misleading or totally invalid. In fact, much of the literature is simply untrue.

    With reference to your interest in cancer, remember, the US Government alone has, over the last 50 years, spent upward of a quarter of a trillion dollars on cancer research, yet if you are diagnosed with, say, testicular cancer or breast cancer (I’n not sure if you are male or female) your best bet will be surgery. In other words, despite the billions spent on cancer research not much has been achieved in the way of a cure for most forms of the disease.

    That is why a good tutor can be so valuable. They can guide you in defining key questions, in attending to the key facts. In that respect, you are probably, like most post-secondary students, unfortunate compared with those who went a generation or two before you. Then university professors served in the capacity of teachers. They were accessible and ready to devote time to one-on-one instruction. Today that seems not to be the case. Indeed, an undergraduate at a top university may have no contact whatever with the most illustrious names in the department in which they have enrolled to study. That is a sad development and resort to the undigested mass of material on the Internet is not, in my judgement, a substitute for proper instruction.

    However, there are, I suppose, alternatives to the supposed academic teaching staff to whom students may turn for advice. On the Web, it seems, there are many people offering tutorial services. I think in this may be a basis for a new approach to learning, although there is clearly much left to chance in finding direction in this manner. Anyway, I wish you all the best with your studies.

  352. @CanSpeccy

    Offensive, certainly. By all accounts an abrasive personality, and tough on his colleagues. Jensen just took the test, and then met him. I wonder whether it was Crick or Feynman who took the IQ test. Probably Feynman, because he was interested in psychology, though despairing about its methods.

  353. @res

    Hey, these are fascinating references. You should write it up. Jensen and the Shockley IQ test.: Don’t know where I read it. He did not tell me about it. We corresponded a bit, and he was always forthcoming with his references. He sent me a whole bunch of his papers, I think in the 1990′s which I have probably lost. Not in Miele’s book of conversations, from what I can see in the index, though it still might be in there. Jensen thought that book was very fair on him.
    Yep, bright people totter between Dunning-Kruger and the Imposter Syndrome.

  354. @Factorize

    Yes, for a person with intellectual interests, this is the best time to be alive. We have the largest library ever created, and can access almost every bookshelf. We can truly stand on the shoulders of giants. However, because of our own limitations, much of it will take more than a lifetime to understand. In my case, I think it adds to my temporary knowledge, but very little, and most probably nothing, to my mental abilities.

  355. @CanSpeccy

    If someone scores in the top 1% on the numerical part of the IQ test and the bottom 1% on the verbal part of the test, they will say that person has an average IQ. Point out that that person is a mathematical star and a verbal moron, and they will say, no, IQ is a unitary thing, as proved by the existence of g.

    In fact, many clinical psychologists refuse to compute a Full Scale IQ when any one of the four Wechsler factors is relatively low. These things are a matter of judgment, but the tendency is in the opposite direction to the one you describe.

  356. @CanSpeccy

    Imagination is perhaps not a faculty in and of itself, but rather a response to curiosity

    When i often imagine, i don’t do it always because i’m curious. Imagination is for fun too.

    a special ability to do a particular thing

    Maybe imagination is a pre-faculty as well synesthesia.

    The IQ-ists, it seems lack that faculty

    .

    You said imagination is not a faculty. Well, i agree that IQists tend to lack in imagination at least about its subject, it’s one of their ”nuclei”, when people are absolutely right about some subject even they don’t check the facts it’s mean that this stuff is very important for them. It’s one of their existential business.

    Challenge them in any way you want, but they will insist that IQ = intelligence. If someone scores in the top 1% on the numerical part of the IQ test and the bottom 1% on the verbal part of the test, they will say that person has an average IQ. Point out that that person is a mathematical star and a verbal moron, and they will say, no, IQ is a unitary thing, as proved by the existence of g.

    I have possibly pedantic impression that many of the faults of IQ or cognitive tests is exactly in their hypo-use. Seems many psychologists as well other professionals in this areas are not really curious about the results of this psychometric tests or are too cartesian to go out of the general rules and try to go more deeply in this comparable/measurable analysis, more ”risk-behavior”.

    Yes, i think IQ is at priori a unitary thing, what i said, they believe the IDEAL g is the REAL g. Maybe it’s just like the cognitive difference between men and women. All them have the same GENERAL cognitive traits, but they differ how this traits is distributed and expressed. IDEAL g would be that general cognitive traits and expressed in very symmetrical profile, but we know, it’s very obvious to perceive, that people often have uneleven profiles, some of them which are considerably more umbalanced.

    Point out that g explains little of the variation among scores on tests of different aspects of cognition and they will probably change the subject.

    The explanation i known about g seems quite ”economic”. They say g showed when a ”person” is good in something s/he tend to be good in other things. Really**

    I find it very vague and pre-verified/proven. What we always perceive about other people and about ourselves is that we have strenghts, avg’s and weakeness. Because someone scored very similar in many subtests it’s still don’t mean it have very similar capacity levels in all or in most of the tasks, period.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  357. @CanSpeccy

    HAHAHA, exactly, they are sooo naive or other thing…. ;)

    autist..

  358. @Santoculto

    G = general knowledge

    IDEAL G = pre-polymath/polymath

    REAL G = superficial general knowledge, on avg

  359. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    We have the largest library ever created, and can access almost every bookshelf.

    A library where people keep shouting things like “buy this T-shirt”, “Natural deodorant that protects and nourishes”, “subscribe now, only 37 cents per day,” “see this naked girl,” “Access full text $40.00,” etc. Meantime, standards of academic achievement in America show no improvement, the pace of productivity growth has declined, and globally, IQ scores are falling fast.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  360. @CanSpeccy

    The best hope for a humane humanity may be the creation of a system of reserves, where humans would live under various cultural systems of a basically static kind.

    Oh, that’s gonna happen. Oh, fersher, that’s gonna happen.

  361. @utu

    I am just not good when it comes to gradation of analogies and metaphors. I tend to err on the side of hyperbola. Reeducation camps would do, I guess.

    Just so long as those with the highest IQs get the top bunks!!

  362. @CanSpeccy

    A library where people keep shouting things like “buy this T-shirt”, “Natural deodorant that protects and nourishes”, “subscribe now, only 37 cents per day,” “see this naked girl,” “Access full text $40.00,”

    Sci-Hub exists for a reason.

  363. @CanSpeccy

    Even then, nothing inferred from a computer screen has the reliability of direct observation, so perhaps we are really less well aware of the nature of reality than were our ancestors who were without benefit of the Internet, television or the mass media.

    Thank god for YouTube, which proves true anything and everything.

    I am inclined to disagree with your “good book” position. A book is just an expression by one man, explaining his personal viewpoint. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is judged a “good book”, but it’s heavy going even for those so anointed, and in the end, one may squinch the eyes a bit and announce quite reasonably that “i’m not so sure I agree with that.”

    The Internet provides a means of selectively searching for information. The large volume of information returned is by no means necessarily valid nor verified; however, the amplification of scope provides perspective, which improves the distillation to useful conclusions from the mass of, er, somewhat amorphous but related data.

  364. @James Thompson

    In my case, I think it adds to my temporary knowledge, but very little, and most probably nothing, to my mental abilities.

    It improves synthesis and holistic integration. And synchrony, imo. Not being an IQist, I tend to believe that abilities must be developed through exercise, through application and use, else they remain recessive.

  365. Factorize says:

    CanSpeccy,

    thank you for your reply. My recent online studies have been such a blessing. Who knew that learning could be so much fun? When you can finally get away from all the other things that can get in the way, it is possible to achieve at a very high level and develop a great sense of personal satisfaction for your accomplishments.

    It is true that there is simply an ocean of resources and it is quite possible that one could become shipwrecked trying to search through it all. However, I have been able to navigate to the bounty quite well.

    My cup runneth over. There is treasure everywhere!

    With all the online resources available to me, it is never necessary to be unclear about anything. Typically textbooks will have some topics that are presented in a very garbled way. Often these are exactly the topics that will be on the exams. Whenever I encounter such topics I can go online and find parallel descriptions from other textbooks. Usually no two textbooks will choose the same topic to garble. I will just relentlessly continue to understand a topic until I am fully satisfied that it is clear to me. Sometimes I have went to dozens of websites to clarify something that is nagging me. By backchecking topics that are unclear, one can develop a nearly perfect understanding
    of entire textbooks.

    If I need an example to prove a point, then I can find a million or more on pubmed. It is infinite.
    In my researches there is little dross to worry about. While a tutor is not guiding me on my way, the search engines almost help fulfill this role. At times they seem uncannily omniscient.

    Strangely enough this does help to highlight my point about the advantages of the 1000 IQ life. Clearly at times I do feel like there is a mountain of information that is just beyond my reach.
    I simply can not realistically read 1 million articles about cancer. Even if I did, I doubt if I would have much more to say after reading it than I did about “A Tale of Two Cities”. Now think how
    someone with 1000 IQ with perfect memory might respond. The connections between the different lines of research would be very clear to such a person.

    {Notably, when John von Neumann contracted pancreatic cancer he did not appear to even attempt to interact with the cancer literature then available. It must have seemed even to him entirely hopeless to begin a research program of visiting various libraries and finding treatments that might be of help. If he were in the modern internet age, I doubt very much that he would behave in a similar manner.}

    I find it so exciting that someone with any interest could develop expert level knowledge by accessing current literature. My guess would be that this is exactly what is happening with the kids growing up today.

    I am sure that would be exactly what I would be doing right now. All of this could happen underground. There would be no great need for flamboyant gifted programs. Basically, a home schooled baby, a computer with internet access, and 20 years at 100 hours per week. No whinging out there by any who might object: “Oh they aren’t high enough g”. Anyone who applied themselves under such a schedule would develop extraordinary levels of talent in any given field.

    I think such a future is probably inevitable.
    The demonstrated level of meaningful real world achievement would be extraordinary.

  366. Factorize says:

    Doctor Thompson,

    yes this is absolutely the best time ever. An era in which transmitting a bit of information
    has virtually no marginal cost has given us a life of near information saturation. At the same time,
    the movement to allow open access to an ever growing portion of the stockpile of human wisdom means that it will not be merely a saturation of empty information content.

    Yet, for those who have a more social propensity this might be close to the worst time ever. A world in which intellectuals vanish into the delights of virtual reality and leave others to cope with real reality surely will pose some challenges.

    The full implications of this transformation have yet to manifest. As mentioned above, what
    happens when the kids start to reject their predigested table d’hôte/à la carte lives and take it off-road? Allowing kids an opportunity to access a broad base of informational and lab resources likely would have a very profound effect on humanity.

    Even though I self-identify as a quant, there has been a large scale failure by those in quantification. While we have moved through a period of enormous informational prosperity, economic indicators have in no way reflected such a transformation. I might derive perhaps $20,000 per year in enjoyment and edification from this new internet era, yet little or none of this wealth is reflected in a hard economic stat.

    Psychometrics has quantified this change no better. Achievement levels are reported as being unchanged to perhaps negative. Yet at the same time there is this overwhelming powerful new ability to magnify one’s mental range by drawing on the collective intelligence of humanity. Surely this has to be acknowledged as a new form of the Flynn effect. The reason why this has went largely unnoticed is because the focus has been so squarely focused on g. g might not have changed, though the intellectual reach of the typical student certainly has. It is as if we renormed the scholastic achievement scale by a factor of 10 and no one noticed.

    Even dumping information into your short to near term memory gives you a chance to make connections and see new possibilites. There is a chance that an AHA moment might occur. These are the sparks of insight that have always inched humanity forward. With the current infotech, such sparks should happen more frequently.

    If there are any educators or if anyone is within a few degrees of separation of such a person, then there would be great value in reading about their insights of the changeover into the internet age and how this has influenced student performance. I would love to hear about this. The difference should be most profoundly noticed on written assignments. After reviewing my own records, I can attest that the difference was like night and day.

    Tools such as the internet clearly allow for a much greater reach into the storehouse of human knowledge. I have found that any assignment style question can be researched until very detailed
    and sophisticated answers can be produced. This is not equivalent to g, though common place
    understanding would still consider it to be very smart. Perhaps this could be a way out of the endless g arguments.

    • Replies: @AP
    , @James Thompson
  367. AP says:
    @Factorize

    Psychometrics has quantified this change no better. Achievement levels are reported as being unchanged to perhaps negative. Yet at the same time there is this overwhelming powerful new ability to magnify one’s mental range by drawing on the collective intelligence of humanity.

    These two phenomena are not mutually exclusive. Studies have shown that GPS has led to an atrophy in the ability to naturally find one’s way someplace. Spell-checks have led people to spell more poorly. Calculators mean that fewer people have memorized the multiplication tables. Older physicians grumble that young ones, due to the ease of google, have memorized far less than they ought to have, which makes them less capable of dealing with situations “in the moment.” Put a healthy person in a motorized wheelchair for a year, and see how much strength (and perhaps balance) he has lost when he tries to get out of the chair.

    Natural abilities often atrophy in response to artificial aides.

    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
  368. @AP

    Studies have shown that GPS has led to an atrophy in the ability to naturally find one’s way someplace. Spell-checks have led people to spell more poorly

    Source?

    • Replies: @res
    , @AP
  369. @Factorize

    The store of knowledge a person has is only lightly touched upon in psychometrics. General knowledge is seen as something you pick up if you are bright. So, your expanded library changes your knowledge, but it will only be worth something if you put the pieces together into a new form which contributes to greater understanding. Few of us are able to do that. Hence, the comparative studies on human achievement are much concerned about rates of innovation. I agree that this is an important measure, but there are considerable problems with its quantification across different eras.

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

    Shockley soliciting a prostitute: Just straight sex. No talking. Not a word.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
  371. Factorize says:

    Doctor Thompson,

    time and time again there have been these changes and time after time they seem to have gone unnoticed. It is as if our entire planet shifts to a new solar system and this information is never
    mentioned in the history books. Surprisingly, even while IQ scores increased over many decades no one had thought to look for this temporal trend. The differences were papered over for all that time by simply renorming the tests.

    Something similar appears to now be happening. Even while the technological revolution has greatly amplified people’s ability to adaptively function, the IQ tests might be seeing a decrease in scores. The change involved is not g, though this is a result of how testing is done.

    When I sit an exam, I am often only allowed to use a single line non-programmable calculator. If the rules were relaxed so that I could bring in any electronic device that I chose, then the grades might be viewed as highly suspect as I would then have a world of information resources at my disposal. I could even call world experts in any given subject area and ask for their opinion. However, as soon as I leave the highly artificial exam environment I could then freely access all my technological devices to help me function more intelligently in the world.

    Psychometrics has distorted the measurement of intelligence to conform to the testing environment of a century or more ago. It is almost as if psychometricians imagined how a hominoid 50,000 years ago without any elaborate tools except his brain might respond to cognitive testing. We are supposed to pretend that the information revolution never happened so that no discontinuities emerge.

    I realize that this would present a challenge when trying to compare different eras. However, by trying to remove the technological tools from the testing environment one is creating a highly artificial context. When people are then asked the speed of sound or how to navigate through space and they appear to do worse than those in the past, the context is missed. It is not so much that they have truly exhibited decreased performance, but instead that the adaptive significance of the tested behavior has changed.

    A good way to think about this would be to consider a Turing Test. You could type questions on a screen and a person would respond. One could imagine under one condition the person could only access a typical high school library and under another condition the person could access the full content of the internet without being able to contact anyone for direct help. The difference in the quality of responses would no doubt be very large.

    This is not entirely an empty Gedankenexperiment. As Afrosapiens noted, the typical resources available to someone who might be Turing tested in Africa as above, is probably even less than a high school library. g differences present are now being greatly amplified by the lack of even basic informational resources in Africa. In the modern world technologies quickly equalize and then
    g can be placed again at the center as the driving force of differentiation in the community.

    • Replies: @utu
  372. Factorize says:

    AP,

    this is a good observation.

    At the same time that “effective” intelligence might be increasing, “measured” intelligence would be decreasing especially when the IQ amplifiers such as cell phone apps, calculators etc. are withheld inside of a testing environment. It would be of some interest to test people under more natural real world conditions in which technological devices were permitted. It is true that you would then not be comparing apples with apples across time, though at least you would not be comparing apples with lemons for a given time.

  373. res says:
    @RaceRealist88

    I have not seen a definitive study about GPS yet, but here is an example article: https://www.gislounge.com/spatial-orientation-and-the-brain-the-effects-of-map-reading-and-navigation/
    Google will show more if you choose to look.

    • Replies: @AP
  374. utu says:
    @Factorize

    A good way to think about this would be to consider a Turing Test… the person could only access a typical high school library and under another condition the person could access the full content of the internet

    Turing Test never will be about knowledge stored in databases. It would be too simple. Turing tests will be about sounding human. About his ability to detect subtle irony or sarcasm or play on words. Many shades of meaning. Expressing complex emotions w/o using big words. But as I follow your sci-fi phantasy comments here I can imagine a situation when people will end up sounding like machines and then there will be a need for an anti-Turing test where people will compete to be not detected as humans among the AI machines. And I think you may have very good shot in this competition. Just stay on course. Don’t change anything.

  375. AP says:
    @res

    You beat me to it!

  376. Factorize says:

    utu, thank you for replying.

    Yes, your characterization of the Turing test conforms better to its intent.

    Yet, I am interested in your opinion on the idea that we have missed out on this large shift of
    “effective” intelligence as I tried to describe in my Turing test suggestion. Educational systems test students on the basis of demonstration of knowledge. If this were not important, then they could simply allow people to bring in their cell phones and tablets to exams. I am not sure why this has not been more prominent in psychometric discussions.

    You are quite right to insist that a Turing test should be more than a demonstration of knowledge; it is testing more a demonstration of affect.

    Computer programs that could make sense of the mountain of human knowledge and distill some sort of meaning from it would be of extreme value to humans. It would be yet another way humans could magnify their “effective intelligence”.

  377. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @James Thompson

    So, your expanded library changes your knowledge, but it will only be worth something if you put the pieces together into a new form which contributes to greater understanding.

    Exactly. That is why specialists, researchers, people who make discoveries and inventions tend to be highly focused on a limited area of knowledge. By having an encyclopedic knowledge in a limited area, they can see all the angles, and all the pitfalls (most, anyway). In a scientific or technical field, they know the techniques that have proved to be valid, they know the techniques that are dodgy or invalid, and they know whose work has stood up to scrutiny and whose work has not.

    These are the people who can be valuable mentors. They can direct you to the information you need in order to grasp the essentials of a subject, they can point out the key connections, inferences, and implications. And they can save you wasting time on the mass of material so readily available on the Web that is peripheral, irrelevant, misleading, or wrong.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  378. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @utu

    Yes, Shockley was clearly a crank with the unbalanced mental development and compulsive personality that is a prerequisite to creativity.

  379. The idea that young teen boys gain 4 IQ points during early puberty is perhaps the most counterintuitive result of all time.

    • LOL: res
  380. @CanSpeccy

    Now you need learn with them and stop to strawman excessively about IQ tests.

  381. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @jacques sheete

    3.8 Points! If men are so much smarter then why do they commit 80 percent of all crimes?

    • Replies: @Joe Franklin
  382. @Anon

    Because public laws are created and approved by a feminist and queer super-majority?

  383. Men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. Mens strengths allow them to build things that advance society. Womens strengths (language, expressing their thoughts) DO NOT advance society.
    Even if you took males and females with the same iqs, the males will build you something reliable that the women cant.

Current Commenter
says:

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Thompson Comments via RSS