The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Thompson ArchiveBlogview
The Genetics of Genius
1.6% to 2.4%
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

genius above chance

There are two main approaches to understanding the evolution of intelligence.

A) Study the differences in intelligence between genetic groups.
B) Study the differences in intelligence within a genetic group.

Approach A is currently not being funded, as far as I know, but please let me know if there are studies I should be commenting on. Approach B is where current research is concentrated. Usually, the hunt for the genes for intelligence has proceeded by comparing clever people with average people. This has yielded good results, though not as good as originally expected, when it was anticipated that a smallish number of “candidate” genes would be identified. In fact, the outcome has been more prosaic: “there are probably very many genes involved in building an intelligent brain, each playing a very small part, and probably each doing some other things as well”. Complicated. Given that apparent disappointment, it seemed a good idea to look at the genetics of extremely bright people, those with an IQ of 170+. In such a very bright sample the genes for intelligence should be easier to find. No, I have not contributed a sample of my saliva. I was not even asked to be a control, thus robbing me of the boast “I was a control subject in the study of genius”.

A genome-wide association study for extremely high intelligence. D Zabaneh, E Krapohl, HA Gaspar, C Curtis, SHLee, H Patel, S Newhouse, HMWu, MA Simpson, M Putallaz, D Lubinski, R Plomin and G Breen

https://www.nature.com/articles/mp2017121.epdf?author_access_token=HVYtxmwLMz5iMIJSjxaActRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NO23InWtaYI2cPRh-mGDYNvB2HjCfy3S88K3i6J6JOSU1P-4VvTwdzwpEqSrYTAvY2rLnkT9lfYlc1u7sW7AJ7

Many of the authors will be known to you, particularly David Lubinski and Robert Plomin. The authors say:

We used a case–control genome-wide association (GWA) design with cases consisting of 1238 individuals from the top 0.0003 (~170 mean IQ) of the population distribution of intelligence and 8172 unselected population-based controls. The single-nucleotide polymorphism heritability for the extreme IQ trait was 0.33 (0.02), which is the highest so far for a cognitive phenotype, and significant genome-wide genetic correlations of 0.78 were observed with educational attainment and 0.86 with population IQ. Three variants in locus ADAM12 achieved genome-wide significance, although they did not replicate with published GWA analyses of normal-range IQ or educational attainment. A genome-wide polygenic score constructed from the GWA results accounted for 1.6% of the variance of intelligence in the normal range in an unselected sample of 3414 individuals, which is comparable to the variance explained by GWA studies of intelligence with substantially larger sample sizes. The gene family plexins, members of which are mutated in several monogenic neurodevelopmental disorders, was significantly enriched for associations with high IQ. This study shows the utility of extreme trait selection for genetic study of intelligence and suggests that extremely high intelligence is continuous genetically with normal-range intelligence in the population.

The concept of being in the top 0.0003 of intellect is not an easy number to handle, not at my level of intelligence anyway. Does it help to say the top 0.03% ? Gigerenzer would suggest not. Decimals and percentages make strange bedfellows. Simplest to say the top 3 people in 10,000. Rare minds.

The authors continue:

One of the best-established findings in cognitive science is that individual differences in performance on diverse cognitive tasks correlate about 0.30 and that a general factor explains about 40% of the total variance. This general cognitive ability factor, usually called general intelligence (‘g’), is one of the best predictors of important life outcomes including education, occupation, and mental and physical health. General intelligence is also one of the most heritable behavioural traits, with heritability increasing from 40% in childhood to 80% in later adulthood.

The author set out their procedures, showing their quality controls and the way they establish significance which they have set at p<5×10 -8 so as to avoid the false positives which arise from multiple comparisons. This is another number which is difficult to handle, but the usual basic test for significance in social science is a mere p<5×10 -2. There are entire chapters which have been written about significance testing, and I am grateful to Prof Gerd Gigerenzer for having sent me his paper on this issue years ago.

https://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/gg/GG_Null_2004.pd

The results show that the significant findings can be traced back to ADAM12 on chromosome 10, responsible for membrane-anchored proteins which have been implicated in a variety of biological processes involving cell–cell and cell–matrix interactions, including fertilization, muscle development and neurogenesis. These few significant findings can be seen in the top figure, poking their heads above common or garden genetic codes, or like helium filled balloons rising upwards to eminence.

Genetic correlations with intelligence were strong, and largest when they included a scholastic component

:genetic correl Plomin genius

The key finding is that, from a genetic point of view, high intelligence is an extreme of normal intelligence. The estimated heritability of high intelligence is .33 the strongest ever demonstrated. In the pathway analysis, the gene family plexins, members of which are mutated in several monogenic neurodevelopmental disorders, was significantly enriched for associations with high IQ (P-value = 6.43 × 10− 5). The plexin-semaphorin pathway has been linked to axon guidance, mental disability and neural connectivity, axon regeneration in the central nervous system, bone disorders, cancer and inflammatory diseases.

It is now standard in these genetics papers to move from sample of discovery to sample of testing. If only all other branches of psychology followed this “buy one, get one free” standard. The downside is that the variance accounted for is usually very small, as predictions which work in the original sample melt away when confronting the reality of a new sample.

A polygenic score created from the TIP GWA results accounted for 1.6% of the variance in individual differences in intelligence in TEDS at age 16 years for our 4-test composite of intelligence and 2.4% for our 16-test measure of g. A polygenic score created from the TIP GWA results accounted for 1.6% of the variance in individual differences in intelligence in TEDS at age 16years for our 4-test composite of intelligence and 2.4% for our 16-test measure of g.

This is a harsh test, because it is using only a very few signals to try to predict the whole range of normal intelligence. Of course, it is still disappointing that only a few snippets of genetic code emerge from the tough significance tests. The idea was that a hyper-bright sample would provide the rich vein of gold that had been sparse in other sedimentary rocks. One has the feeling that the secret of high ability remains, mostly, a secret. I hope that the authors will keep pressing on. Perhaps many of the marginally significant SNPs could be organized into an exploratory factor, and investigated further. Perhaps some new theories need to be advanced, such as may be derived from considering the building blocks of nervous systems in simpler organisms. Every code can be broken, but usually a crib is helpful. Armies send messages about ammunition, supplies and reinforcements. What do genes send messages about? (Yes, proteins, but proteins for what?)

The authors conclude:

In summary, we have shown that extremely high intelligence is a polygenic trait and its high heritability indicates that GWA analysis captures a large portion of the genetic variance. The novel aspect of the present study is that it represents a complementary strategy to the ‘brute force’ approach of increasing sample sizes of GWA studies of IQ variation in the normal range (and is an example for quantitative trait genetics in general). It demonstrates the utility of a ‘positive genetics’ strategy of focusing on the extremely high end of the distribution of IQ. Larger scale studies focusing on either high IQ or IQ in the normal range are likely to be successful in the identification of many significant loci and biological pathways.

 
• Category: Science • Tags: IQ, Racial Intelligence 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
158 Comments to "The Genetics of Genius"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. 1/3333 is IQ 151-152, not 170. 170 is one from 650,000. For that they would need to find every single person with IQ that high from 800 million people. That’s EU and US together.

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    It seemed that way to me as well.

    Finding an adequate number of individuals with an IQ of 170 or more for this kind of study seems like a pretty daunting task.

    And what testing method did they use to establish the participant's high IQ?

    , @RobRich
    Exactly what I said. In fact the only study I know of the hyper-IQ 170+ is by the Libertarian International, and they've been quietly recruiting them for decades. They're hard to identify because of the limits of current tests so you have to do additional behavioral studies. They have people who have looked at genes but strictly in-house.

    The study here uses indirect indicators like the SAT and then in ways not intended. Nice try, but the PR is overblown...
    , @Pat Boyle
    What is the test these people with an IQ of 170 are taking? The last IQ-like test I took was the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). I got an 800 on the verbal part and a little bit lower on the quantitative part. That is just about as high as that test goes but it is still only three standard deviations above the mean. That would correspond to an IQ of only around 145.

    I'm smart enough, but I am no where near the smartest person I have ever known. Yet I maxed out on this test. So what test are they taking? It can't be the WAIS which I believe also has an upper limit of around 3 SDs. I took the Stanford-Binet as an undergraduate. I don't know its upper boundary but I don't think it goes any higher.

    I know that there are some tests given by specialty organizations for the highest IQs, but I wonder about their validity The WAIS, the GRE, the SAT and the Army tests have been given to millions. But these specialty tests have had, I think, only a handful of participants.

    Try to keep your answer simple - I'm not as smart as I would like to be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    //www.unz.com/jthompson/the-genetics-of-genius/#comment-1930893
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Dr. Thompson, speaking of individual intelligence differences, is there a theory as to why individuals differ in intelligence?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    By the way, if general intelligence is physiological, then why don’t physiologists study it?

    I have a textbook by Kenneth Saladin and the general factor of intelligence is not brought up once. It is in a psychology textbook I have, however.

    Point is, if physiologists were to study the g factor they wouldn't put it on a rank order. Ranking traits is something a psychologist does, physiologists don't do that.

    An example: the heritability of basal metabolic rate (BMR) is between .4 and .8, the same range as IQ. Can anyone here imagine physiologists praising a higher level in trait X as "better", say, stroke volume or my BMR example above? I know of no physiologists who rank physiological traits in such an order.

  3. @RaceRealist88
    Dr. Thompson, speaking of individual intelligence differences, is there a theory as to why individuals differ in intelligence?

    By the way, if general intelligence is physiological, then why don’t physiologists study it?

    I have a textbook by Kenneth Saladin and the general factor of intelligence is not brought up once. It is in a psychology textbook I have, however.

    Point is, if physiologists were to study the g factor they wouldn’t put it on a rank order. Ranking traits is something a psychologist does, physiologists don’t do that.

    An example: the heritability of basal metabolic rate (BMR) is between .4 and .8, the same range as IQ. Can anyone here imagine physiologists praising a higher level in trait X as “better”, say, stroke volume or my BMR example above? I know of no physiologists who rank physiological traits in such an order.

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    Intelligence may be the single most important characteristic that defines the human animal as special.

    Hence the focus on intelligence, rather than something like vertical jump or bench press .
  4. @Van Doren
    1/3333 is IQ 151-152, not 170. 170 is one from 650,000. For that they would need to find every single person with IQ that high from 800 million people. That's EU and US together.

    It seemed that way to me as well.

    Finding an adequate number of individuals with an IQ of 170 or more for this kind of study seems like a pretty daunting task.

    And what testing method did they use to establish the participant’s high IQ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    There used to be big lumps at the right end of English would-be normal curves (Cf. Burt's unquestioned data) because of assortative mating among the successful classes who also used to outbreed the lower orders. Irish Catholics carried on for another couple of generations outbreeding their dimmer cousins but now, like most Jews, the smart are being outbred and something like the normal curve you are supposing may be manifesting itself. In short the idea of an overall population wide normal curve describing the distribution of g has always been dubious.
  5. @RaceRealist88
    By the way, if general intelligence is physiological, then why don’t physiologists study it?

    I have a textbook by Kenneth Saladin and the general factor of intelligence is not brought up once. It is in a psychology textbook I have, however.

    Point is, if physiologists were to study the g factor they wouldn't put it on a rank order. Ranking traits is something a psychologist does, physiologists don't do that.

    An example: the heritability of basal metabolic rate (BMR) is between .4 and .8, the same range as IQ. Can anyone here imagine physiologists praising a higher level in trait X as "better", say, stroke volume or my BMR example above? I know of no physiologists who rank physiological traits in such an order.

    Intelligence may be the single most important characteristic that defines the human animal as special.

    Hence the focus on intelligence, rather than something like vertical jump or bench press .

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    You didn't understand the argument. Physiologists don't rank physiological traits. That's something psychologists do (rank traits). Please read the linked article to understand the arguments. Physiologists don't rank traits in a hierarchical order. That is the point.

    By the way, humans aren't special.

    , @Realist
    "Intelligence may be the single most important characteristic that defines the human animal as special."

    Yes, that and integrity.
  6. @lavoisier
    Intelligence may be the single most important characteristic that defines the human animal as special.

    Hence the focus on intelligence, rather than something like vertical jump or bench press .

    You didn’t understand the argument. Physiologists don’t rank physiological traits. That’s something psychologists do (rank traits). Please read the linked article to understand the arguments. Physiologists don’t rank traits in a hierarchical order. That is the point.

    By the way, humans aren’t special.

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    I disagree.

    Humans can be very special. We are the only species able to somewhat master our environment using complex tools.

    We may be the only species that has the capacity to not only understand natural law, but manipulate natural law to our advantage. Dolphins and elephants are likely very intelligent in their own way, but neither species can manipulate their environment the way that human beings can.

    I think this unique ability makes us very special indeed.

    Whether this special ability will ultimately lead to the destruction of the planet is still an open question.
  7. What do you make of the Scottish study that found fewer mutations were important?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4625342/DNA-mutations-poor-health-make-stupid.html

    Conversely, is there any IQ relevance for Braess’s paradox and Adilson Motter’s suggestion that gene networks could be made more efficient by knocking out part of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jingo Starr
    You raise one question and overlook the more fundamental question embedded in it. IF mutations diminish genetic fitness, ...?

    :)
  8. My attention may have wandered, doc, but I don’t see what this post has to do with Genius.

    Presumably I’ve met people who, unknown to me (and perhaps themselves), had an IQ of 170.
    But I don’t believe I’ve ever met a genius: maybe one, but my meeting with him was merely a perfunctory introduction. Whether his IQ was 170 I have no idea.

    Judging by the blogs I’ve visited, in the US “genius” refers to a particularly bright child at the commenter’s High School. I’m not clear what it means to you. Something more elevated, I trust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed "genius" is a term reasonably applied by those bright enough to have some understanding of the output of the genius and its significance to someone who produces ideas or solutions which come as from intuition and whose development cannot be quickly understood. Thus it is hardly surprising that Mozart or Picasso may seem a genius to me whereas the not insignificant number of people I have known whose IQs have been measured at >175 are most striking to me for the speed at which they do understandable things with words and number related ideas. The high IQ judge will see three steps ahead in counsel"s argument but maybe it is counsel with "genius" who intuits the way to get through to that clever judge's quick brain without even being able, at least in advance, to articulate what he is doing.

    So yes the speed of brain which one tends to associate with high IQ and "genius" probably helps contribute to the sense of something a bit mysterious.
  9. Academic fields sorted according to their endorsement of genetic causes of human behavior:

    Read More
  10. @RaceRealist88
    You didn't understand the argument. Physiologists don't rank physiological traits. That's something psychologists do (rank traits). Please read the linked article to understand the arguments. Physiologists don't rank traits in a hierarchical order. That is the point.

    By the way, humans aren't special.

    I disagree.

    Humans can be very special. We are the only species able to somewhat master our environment using complex tools.

    We may be the only species that has the capacity to not only understand natural law, but manipulate natural law to our advantage. Dolphins and elephants are likely very intelligent in their own way, but neither species can manipulate their environment the way that human beings can.

    I think this unique ability makes us very special indeed.

    Whether this special ability will ultimately lead to the destruction of the planet is still an open question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    I'll take what I can get.

    "Humans can be very special. We are the only species able to somewhat master our environment using complex tools."

    And? Why have an anthropocentric view of evolution? Why look at us as the apex of evolution? Take us out as measuring sticks. Every animal then is "intelligent"---why should we be the measuring sticks?

    "We may be the only species that has the capacity to not only understand natural law, but manipulate natural law to our advantage."

    OK? And? That still doesn't mean we're special. Our brains supposedly make us special, yet we literally have scaled-up primate brains, we have the amount of neurons expected for a primate of our body size. See Herculano-Houzel's work. What you're saying is literally meaningless.

    "Dolphins and elephants are likely very intelligent in their own way, but neither species can manipulate their environment the way that human beings can."

    There are two reasons why we can manipulate our environment the way we do: our bipedal morphology and hands (because we're primates). Our brain in an elephant or dolphin body, will we still do what we've done? Hell no. The brain needs the body and the body needs the brain. They compliment each other.

    "I think this unique ability makes us very special indeed."

    Everything we do is special "just because" we said so. Anthropocentrism is dumb, especially in the context of evolutionary biology.

    "Whether this special ability will ultimately lead to the destruction of the planet is still an open question."

    It most definitely will lead to the destruction of the planet. Will our "ability" be so amazing then when we---as a species---destroy the planet and ecosystem?

    This response also doesn't even touch the heart of the matter: physiologists don't study general intelligence and if they did they wouldn't rank it. That's something psychologists do. Hmmm..
  11. @godfree Roberts
    Academic fields sorted according to their endorsement of genetic causes of human behavior:
    https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/884747277310545920

    Where is physiology, genetics and neuroscience?

    Read More
  12. @lavoisier
    I disagree.

    Humans can be very special. We are the only species able to somewhat master our environment using complex tools.

    We may be the only species that has the capacity to not only understand natural law, but manipulate natural law to our advantage. Dolphins and elephants are likely very intelligent in their own way, but neither species can manipulate their environment the way that human beings can.

    I think this unique ability makes us very special indeed.

    Whether this special ability will ultimately lead to the destruction of the planet is still an open question.

    I’ll take what I can get.

    “Humans can be very special. We are the only species able to somewhat master our environment using complex tools.”

    And? Why have an anthropocentric view of evolution? Why look at us as the apex of evolution? Take us out as measuring sticks. Every animal then is “intelligent”—why should we be the measuring sticks?

    “We may be the only species that has the capacity to not only understand natural law, but manipulate natural law to our advantage.”

    OK? And? That still doesn’t mean we’re special. Our brains supposedly make us special, yet we literally have scaled-up primate brains, we have the amount of neurons expected for a primate of our body size. See Herculano-Houzel’s work. What you’re saying is literally meaningless.

    “Dolphins and elephants are likely very intelligent in their own way, but neither species can manipulate their environment the way that human beings can.”

    There are two reasons why we can manipulate our environment the way we do: our bipedal morphology and hands (because we’re primates). Our brain in an elephant or dolphin body, will we still do what we’ve done? Hell no. The brain needs the body and the body needs the brain. They compliment each other.

    “I think this unique ability makes us very special indeed.”

    Everything we do is special “just because” we said so. Anthropocentrism is dumb, especially in the context of evolutionary biology.

    “Whether this special ability will ultimately lead to the destruction of the planet is still an open question.”

    It most definitely will lead to the destruction of the planet. Will our “ability” be so amazing then when we—as a species—destroy the planet and ecosystem?

    This response also doesn’t even touch the heart of the matter: physiologists don’t study general intelligence and if they did they wouldn’t rank it. That’s something psychologists do. Hmmm..

    Read More
  13. @RaceRealist88
    Where is physiology, genetics and neuroscience?

    Good question! Why not ask the author?

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    I can't speak for the other two but I can speak for physiology.

    Our physiological systems are Intelligent. Our physiology is constantly taking cues from our environment, all the while constantly attempting to maintain homeostasis due to an ever changing environment. From my understanding, physiologists don't even try to untangle the genetic and environmental components of physiological traits due to how complex the relationship is. This, again, is something that psychologists do.

  14. @godfree Roberts
    Good question! Why not ask the author?

    I can’t speak for the other two but I can speak for physiology.

    Our physiological systems are Intelligent. Our physiology is constantly taking cues from our environment, all the while constantly attempting to maintain homeostasis due to an ever changing environment. From my understanding, physiologists don’t even try to untangle the genetic and environmental components of physiological traits due to how complex the relationship is. This, again, is something that psychologists do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Our physiological systems are Intelligent." Thank you. On point.
  15. I don’t know much about these things but I just looked up the rarity of people with an IQ of 170, which is almost five sigma above the norm. It is one person out of every 164,571, not 3 out of 10,000, which would be closer to an IQ of 155. (Here is the chart: https://goo.gl/65HrF) There are quite a few people with IQ’s in the 170 range. You find them among leading theoretical physicists and mathematicians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. T
    These numbers are calculated assuming normal distribution of IQ. At these extreme edges very small deviations in the shape of the distribution significantly change the numbers. They thus should be taken with a huge grain of salt. However, in this case the IQ 170 limit fits very good with a cutoff of 0.0003%. I would thus assume that the % symbol was lost during the editing process. This seems to have occurred already in an earlier paper and carried over.
  16. With my above average IQ I read the article, after reading just one question ‘what is the point ?’.

    Read More
  17. @lavoisier
    It seemed that way to me as well.

    Finding an adequate number of individuals with an IQ of 170 or more for this kind of study seems like a pretty daunting task.

    And what testing method did they use to establish the participant's high IQ?

    There used to be big lumps at the right end of English would-be normal curves (Cf. Burt’s unquestioned data) because of assortative mating among the successful classes who also used to outbreed the lower orders. Irish Catholics carried on for another couple of generations outbreeding their dimmer cousins but now, like most Jews, the smart are being outbred and something like the normal curve you are supposing may be manifesting itself. In short the idea of an overall population wide normal curve describing the distribution of g has always been dubious.

    Read More
  18. @dearieme
    My attention may have wandered, doc, but I don't see what this post has to do with Genius.

    Presumably I've met people who, unknown to me (and perhaps themselves), had an IQ of 170.
    But I don't believe I've ever met a genius: maybe one, but my meeting with him was merely a perfunctory introduction. Whether his IQ was 170 I have no idea.

    Judging by the blogs I've visited, in the US "genius" refers to a particularly bright child at the commenter's High School. I'm not clear what it means to you. Something more elevated, I trust.

    Indeed “genius” is a term reasonably applied by those bright enough to have some understanding of the output of the genius and its significance to someone who produces ideas or solutions which come as from intuition and whose development cannot be quickly understood. Thus it is hardly surprising that Mozart or Picasso may seem a genius to me whereas the not insignificant number of people I have known whose IQs have been measured at >175 are most striking to me for the speed at which they do understandable things with words and number related ideas. The high IQ judge will see three steps ahead in counsel”s argument but maybe it is counsel with “genius” who intuits the way to get through to that clever judge’s quick brain without even being able, at least in advance, to articulate what he is doing.

    So yes the speed of brain which one tends to associate with high IQ and “genius” probably helps contribute to the sense of something a bit mysterious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Darn unlikely that you've known a not insignificant number of people with IQs above 175.

    Such people are about 1/1M. So roughly 330 of them in the USA. Except there are probably a few more because it's likely a goodly percentage of them born elsewhere immigrate here.

    So, statistically speaking, if you live in a city of 1M, there's one person of this IQ living there. But even this is unlikely because they tend to cluster and it's probable the majority of such people in the US are found in the obvious areas: the Northeast and Silicon Valley.

    Now it is entirely possible you've known a good many people who claim an IQ above 175. :)
  19. with heritability increasing from 40% in childhood to 80% in later adulthood

    If one obtained these result using MZ and DZ twin studies at different ages what correlation of IQ is to be expected between young age and adulthood? Some old British (I think) studies claimed (after correcting for uncertainty due to repeatability) it was close to 0.8. But this is impossible with heritability of 40% in young age. These heritability values impose constraints on correlations, you know.

    Here is another issue. If heritability in young age is only 40% can IQ measured in young age serve as a good predictor of life outcomes in adulthood?

    Keep in mind that 40% heritability implies large variance of IQ differences between two MZ twins. Actually, SD(IQ_twin1-IQ_twni2)=16.4 while the SD of IQ difference of two randomly picked individuals is 21. 16.4 is a significant number. And these two twins when older suppose to have very similar life outcomes because in adulthood the SD=16.4 suppose to shrink to SD=9.5 (if 80% heritability).

    So, what is the point of measuring IQ in young age then?

    Read More
  20. @lavoisier
    Intelligence may be the single most important characteristic that defines the human animal as special.

    Hence the focus on intelligence, rather than something like vertical jump or bench press .

    “Intelligence may be the single most important characteristic that defines the human animal as special.”

    Yes, that and integrity.

    Read More
  21. “with heritability increasing from 40% in childhood to 80% in later adulthood”

    Eh, what does THAT mean?
    Children tend not to reproduce so how can they have a heritability of 40%. How can this increase as they become adults?
    This is not well phrased, nor explained In fact, it is not written, dare I say it, intelligently!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hiromi
    Heritability is the proportion of variance in phenotypic behaviour that is explained by genetypical or ancestral-similarity causes. If all environments are same and all individual choices are the same, heritability goes to 100 percent for any remaining differences in what shows up. Children have high variation in their growth phase and have their individual choices suppressed and normalized by factors like being in school or following curfew or unable to practice their intellect to pursue free activities, therefore heritability is decreased initially with less variance explained. Confounding factors can decrease or increase heritability. Marriage choice can be heritable. Everything is heritable to a certain extent.
    , @ogunsiron
    If I get this wrong after reading razib for all these years, I deserve to be punished, but here is my attempt:

    1)
    Heritability measures the proportion of the observed variance that can be attributed to genetics.
    We're talking here about the observed variance in intelligence among children and then among adults. It's reasonable to attribute some of that variance to genetics and some of that variance to other factors like for example, nutrition. Therefore, "variance in genetic endowment" explains some of the observed variance in intelligence and "variance in life circumstances" explains most of the rest. Assume that we are able to measure the proportion of the observed variance that can be attributed to genetics. We call that "heritability".

    2)
    Why would heritability increase with the age of the subjects ?
    At older ages, you can once again observe variance in intelligence and once again attribute some to "variance in genetic endowment" and some to "variance in life circumstances". I'm not sure about the technical details, but when one does that, one notices that the proportion of the observed variance that can be attributed to genetics is greater than when the subject was younger. The heritability is found to be greater than at younger ages.

    This pattern is observed from childhood to adulthood. Not sure what happens to heritability when one gets into very old age.
    , @utu
    Heritability (in broad sense, upper case H) from twin studies:

    H^2=2*(r_mz - r_dz) (Falconer's formula)
     
    where r_mz and r_dz are correlation of a given trait between MZ twins and DZ twins, respectively.

    The Falconer's formula can be derived mathematically fairly easily, though strangely I did not find it done correctly in Wiki and other places. Many people who use it do not know how it is derived.

    The effect that the heritability H^2 of IQ increases from childhood to adulthood was observed in meta studies by Wilson, so it sometime is called the Wilson effect.

    There is no good explanation of the Wilson effect because it is very counterintuitive. The one given by the IQists require suspense of logic. It is very possible that the effect is spurious resulting from high uncertainty of IQ tests administered to children.

    The Wilson effect is loved by all kind of racists like Charles Murray and other recipients of monies from Pionier Fund like the creatures associated with the Ulster Institute for a very simple reason: If H^2 increases with age any environmental interventions to improve IQ of disadvantaged children like the Head Start is pointless.
  22. @PaulD
    "with heritability increasing from 40% in childhood to 80% in later adulthood"

    Eh, what does THAT mean?
    Children tend not to reproduce so how can they have a heritability of 40%. How can this increase as they become adults?
    This is not well phrased, nor explained In fact, it is not written, dare I say it, intelligently!

    Heritability is the proportion of variance in phenotypic behaviour that is explained by genetypical or ancestral-similarity causes. If all environments are same and all individual choices are the same, heritability goes to 100 percent for any remaining differences in what shows up. Children have high variation in their growth phase and have their individual choices suppressed and normalized by factors like being in school or following curfew or unable to practice their intellect to pursue free activities, therefore heritability is decreased initially with less variance explained. Confounding factors can decrease or increase heritability. Marriage choice can be heritable. Everything is heritable to a certain extent.

    Read More
  23. @RaceRealist88
    I can't speak for the other two but I can speak for physiology.

    Our physiological systems are Intelligent. Our physiology is constantly taking cues from our environment, all the while constantly attempting to maintain homeostasis due to an ever changing environment. From my understanding, physiologists don't even try to untangle the genetic and environmental components of physiological traits due to how complex the relationship is. This, again, is something that psychologists do.

    “Our physiological systems are Intelligent.” Thank you. On point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    You're welcome. It's amazing how the cells are intelligent and how our physiological systems come together, and how they do so is "intelligent". We should rethink our definition of the word "intelligence" since even the smallest bacteria have a semblance of intelligence, along with, of course, our physiology.

    It all comes down to homeostasis. The changeability of our environment is how our intelligent physiology evolved.

    If you're interested, you should read Genes, Brains, and Human Potential: The Science and Ideology of Intelligence by Ken Richardson. I don't agree with everything he writes but chapters 4 and 5 are outstanding and have changed my view on intelligence and intelligent systems. It also helps to have an understanding of physiology.

  24. Very interesting. Some random thoughts:

    1. On the other end of the spectrum (so to speak), figuring out what causes schizophrenia has been fiendishly difficult. Higher level cognitive functions are delicate and the disorder can apparently arise from subtle interactions between thousands of genes and who knows how many environmental factors. So there is no physical test for the disorder! Which makes it hard to figure out how to make better treatments, if you don’t really know what the disorder is. But perhaps not that surprising, as we don’t really know how the brain is supposed to work normally…

    2. Three out of ten-thousand may be rare, but in a world of billions, not uncommon.

    3. Never forget that someone with a potential IQ of 170 who is starving to death in a ditch will not achieve anything. Including finding ways to get out of the ditch.

    4. Intelligence is like having a rifle. Wisdom is knowing where to aim it. There is a difference.

    Read More
  25. @Hiromi
    Heritability is the proportion of variance in phenotypic behaviour that is explained by genetypical or ancestral-similarity causes. If all environments are same and all individual choices are the same, heritability goes to 100 percent for any remaining differences in what shows up. Children have high variation in their growth phase and have their individual choices suppressed and normalized by factors like being in school or following curfew or unable to practice their intellect to pursue free activities, therefore heritability is decreased initially with less variance explained. Confounding factors can decrease or increase heritability. Marriage choice can be heritable. Everything is heritable to a certain extent.

    Well explained. Thanks

    Read More
  26. Mister Thompson don’t know what genius is. Sad! He confuse excellence with exceptionality. He suffer from polymath syndrome, the opposite of savant syndrome. A ocean of excellences. A tiny island of severe deficiency called lack of self knowledge. Subconsciously he is easily self-deceived to believe most of their thoughts namely intellectual thoughts are not cognitively biased. He is part of numerous trope of people on “intelligence research” that don’t know what intelligence is, because confuse it with cognition and don’t pay necessary attention to creativity. Ah, he also don’t know what rationality is. This trope hate so-called “myth” of connection between genius and risk to madness. They was educated via partially failed Terman experiment. Surprisingly we know people who study intelligence tend to be fascinated with this matter AND tend to feel…. smarter than others. It’s a common core among professionals on psychology department. The place where people must learn to self-learn is the same place where people are more prone to reject self-knowledge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "He is part of numerous trope of people on “intelligence research” that don’t know what intelligence is"

    No body knows what "intelligence" is. From psychologists to the layman. That's something you yourself need to understand.
  27. I’m really bright too, but don’t want people to know. That’s why I right under psuedonum.

    Read More
  28. @annamaria
    "Our physiological systems are Intelligent." Thank you. On point.

    You’re welcome. It’s amazing how the cells are intelligent and how our physiological systems come together, and how they do so is “intelligent”. We should rethink our definition of the word “intelligence” since even the smallest bacteria have a semblance of intelligence, along with, of course, our physiology.

    It all comes down to homeostasis. The changeability of our environment is how our intelligent physiology evolved.

    If you’re interested, you should read Genes, Brains, and Human Potential: The Science and Ideology of Intelligence by Ken Richardson. I don’t agree with everything he writes but chapters 4 and 5 are outstanding and have changed my view on intelligence and intelligent systems. It also helps to have an understanding of physiology.

    Read More
  29. “Heritability” doesn’t mean what it sounds like it ought to mean. It sounds like it ought to mean “the ability of something to inherited.” But what it actually means (in scientific usage) is the degree to which genetics accounts for differences between individuals. That’s why it’s possible for heritability to become higher as one gets older: If you look at a group of old people, 80% (let’s say) of the variation in intelligence among members of the group is explained by their various genetic makeups, with the remaining 20% explained by variation in environment or other factors. But if you look at a group of teenagers, only 40% of the variation in intelligence is explained by genetics, with environments and other factors accounting for 60% of the variation.

    Another way of saying that is “the older you get, the more you become like your (biological) parents.”

    Read More
  30. @Santoculto
    Mister Thompson don't know what genius is. Sad! He confuse excellence with exceptionality. He suffer from polymath syndrome, the opposite of savant syndrome. A ocean of excellences. A tiny island of severe deficiency called lack of self knowledge. Subconsciously he is easily self-deceived to believe most of their thoughts namely intellectual thoughts are not cognitively biased. He is part of numerous trope of people on "intelligence research" that don't know what intelligence is, because confuse it with cognition and don't pay necessary attention to creativity. Ah, he also don't know what rationality is. This trope hate so-called "myth" of connection between genius and risk to madness. They was educated via partially failed Terman experiment. Surprisingly we know people who study intelligence tend to be fascinated with this matter AND tend to feel.... smarter than others. It's a common core among professionals on psychology department. The place where people must learn to self-learn is the same place where people are more prone to reject self-knowledge.

    “He is part of numerous trope of people on “intelligence research” that don’t know what intelligence is”

    No body knows what “intelligence” is. From psychologists to the layman. That’s something you yourself need to understand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I have two opportunities to show you AGAIN your entire personal misery: You extremely stupid and no have clue idea about it. But you seems sadomasochistic.

    If none supposedly know what intelligence is so why believe pretend to know?? If this idiotic statement that is very characteristic from you is true so entire Thompson posts would do any sense.

    First, the SAME idiotic thought about humans and evolution you never will understand at least someone do a lobotomy in your poor brain: humans are special in their own way as every species, period. But humans are special also in their behavior, of course comparatively speaking, behavior ==== intelligence. The most important thing to the life is their behavior and without intelligence any species would be able to survive. Humans have the biggest intelligence. Yes, "we" are very special and this doesn't mean other species will not to be. But, I thought it's a self projection when you say"we are not that special".

    Because most psychologists have difficult to establish a common concept to intelligence probably because it's doesn't exist at least in its specific development it doesn't mean nobody know what intelligence is. Again it's a self projection of your personal misery. Dumb and no have a pale idea that you are that dumb and and that you all the time self-fooling.

    The root of all types of intelligence is the minimally correct pattern recognition and it's mean: Perfect reflection of exterior environment, it's start from body perception of exterior environment it is interacting, feeling and extrapolate to mind/nucleus of body namely in ADVANCED species. But as environment are diverse life adaptation must need to adapt/selecting the fittest to this diversity of environments.

    , @Jeff77450
    I took the intro-psych course my freshman year in 1979. The instructor, a very charismatic individual named Roland Miller, said that there was no universally agreed upon definition of what intelligence is. So I came up with my own: [Human] intelligence is the sum total of mental attributes that contributes to our survival, in both the near and the long term, and to achieving a standard of living beyond mere survival.

    I'm sure that we can poke all kinds of holes in that definition. Good hand-eye coordination can contribute to our survival, but is a mental or physical attribute or both? Compassion, empathy, sympathy, altruism can contribute to the survival of our tribe in the long run but get us as individuals killed in the short run. Giving your meager share of food to a pregnant member of the tribe. Throwing yourself on a grenade to save your buddies. My $0.02.
  31. @RaceRealist88
    "He is part of numerous trope of people on “intelligence research” that don’t know what intelligence is"

    No body knows what "intelligence" is. From psychologists to the layman. That's something you yourself need to understand.

    I have two opportunities to show you AGAIN your entire personal misery: You extremely stupid and no have clue idea about it. But you seems sadomasochistic.

    If none supposedly know what intelligence is so why believe pretend to know?? If this idiotic statement that is very characteristic from you is true so entire Thompson posts would do any sense.

    First, the SAME idiotic thought about humans and evolution you never will understand at least someone do a lobotomy in your poor brain: humans are special in their own way as every species, period. But humans are special also in their behavior, of course comparatively speaking, behavior ==== intelligence. The most important thing to the life is their behavior and without intelligence any species would be able to survive. Humans have the biggest intelligence. Yes, “we” are very special and this doesn’t mean other species will not to be. But, I thought it’s a self projection when you say”we are not that special”.

    Because most psychologists have difficult to establish a common concept to intelligence probably because it’s doesn’t exist at least in its specific development it doesn’t mean nobody know what intelligence is. Again it’s a self projection of your personal misery. Dumb and no have a pale idea that you are that dumb and and that you all the time self-fooling.

    The root of all types of intelligence is the minimally correct pattern recognition and it’s mean: Perfect reflection of exterior environment, it’s start from body perception of exterior environment it is interacting, feeling and extrapolate to mind/nucleus of body namely in ADVANCED species. But as environment are diverse life adaptation must need to adapt/selecting the fittest to this diversity of environments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    I'm disregarding your childish attacks.

    "If none supposedly know what intelligence is so why believe pretend to know?? If this idiotic statement that is very characteristic from you is true so entire Thompson posts would do any sense."

    Everyone seems to have a definition but there is no agreed upon one. Characteristic of me? You don't do any reading so you wouldn't know.

    "humans are special in their own way as every species, period."

    Novel information. To say humans are "special" compared to the rest of the animal kingdom is retarded.

    "But, I thought it’s a self projection when you say”we are not that special”."

    Don't worry about me. I'm very successful in what I do in life.

    "Because most psychologists have difficult to establish a common concept to intelligence probably because it’s doesn’t exist at least in its specific development it doesn’t mean nobody know what intelligence is"

    Yes that's exactly what it means.

    "Again it’s a self projection of your personal misery. Dumb and no have a pale idea that you are that dumb and and that you all the time self-fooling."

    Your comment would be half the size without your dumb attacks.

    "The root of all types of intelligence is the minimally correct pattern recognition and it’s mean: Perfect reflection of exterior environment, it’s start from body perception of exterior environment it is interacting, feeling and extrapolate to mind/nucleus of body namely in ADVANCED species. But as environment are diverse life adaptation must need to adapt/selecting the fittest to this diversity of environments."

    Even "non-advanced" species have this ability. Try again.

    Leave your idiotic and baseless attacks put of your next comment.

    Still says nothing to the fact that there is no concrete definition of what "intelligence" is.

  32. @Luke Lea
    I don't know much about these things but I just looked up the rarity of people with an IQ of 170, which is almost five sigma above the norm. It is one person out of every 164,571, not 3 out of 10,000, which would be closer to an IQ of 155. (Here is the chart: https://goo.gl/65HrF) There are quite a few people with IQ's in the 170 range. You find them among leading theoretical physicists and mathematicians.

    These numbers are calculated assuming normal distribution of IQ. At these extreme edges very small deviations in the shape of the distribution significantly change the numbers. They thus should be taken with a huge grain of salt. However, in this case the IQ 170 limit fits very good with a cutoff of 0.0003%. I would thus assume that the % symbol was lost during the editing process. This seems to have occurred already in an earlier paper and carried over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    "These numbers are calculated assuming normal distribution of IQ. At these extreme edges very small deviations in the shape of the distribution significantly change the numbers. They thus should be taken with a huge grain of salt. However, in this case the IQ 170 limit fits very good with a cutoff of 0.0003%. I would thus assume that the % symbol was lost during the editing process. This seems to have occurred already in an earlier paper and carried over."

    Let me just put it this way: I don't have an IQ of 170.
  33. @Santoculto
    I have two opportunities to show you AGAIN your entire personal misery: You extremely stupid and no have clue idea about it. But you seems sadomasochistic.

    If none supposedly know what intelligence is so why believe pretend to know?? If this idiotic statement that is very characteristic from you is true so entire Thompson posts would do any sense.

    First, the SAME idiotic thought about humans and evolution you never will understand at least someone do a lobotomy in your poor brain: humans are special in their own way as every species, period. But humans are special also in their behavior, of course comparatively speaking, behavior ==== intelligence. The most important thing to the life is their behavior and without intelligence any species would be able to survive. Humans have the biggest intelligence. Yes, "we" are very special and this doesn't mean other species will not to be. But, I thought it's a self projection when you say"we are not that special".

    Because most psychologists have difficult to establish a common concept to intelligence probably because it's doesn't exist at least in its specific development it doesn't mean nobody know what intelligence is. Again it's a self projection of your personal misery. Dumb and no have a pale idea that you are that dumb and and that you all the time self-fooling.

    The root of all types of intelligence is the minimally correct pattern recognition and it's mean: Perfect reflection of exterior environment, it's start from body perception of exterior environment it is interacting, feeling and extrapolate to mind/nucleus of body namely in ADVANCED species. But as environment are diverse life adaptation must need to adapt/selecting the fittest to this diversity of environments.

    I’m disregarding your childish attacks.

    “If none supposedly know what intelligence is so why believe pretend to know?? If this idiotic statement that is very characteristic from you is true so entire Thompson posts would do any sense.”

    Everyone seems to have a definition but there is no agreed upon one. Characteristic of me? You don’t do any reading so you wouldn’t know.

    “humans are special in their own way as every species, period.”

    Novel information. To say humans are “special” compared to the rest of the animal kingdom is retarded.

    “But, I thought it’s a self projection when you say”we are not that special”.”

    Don’t worry about me. I’m very successful in what I do in life.

    “Because most psychologists have difficult to establish a common concept to intelligence probably because it’s doesn’t exist at least in its specific development it doesn’t mean nobody know what intelligence is”

    Yes that’s exactly what it means.

    “Again it’s a self projection of your personal misery. Dumb and no have a pale idea that you are that dumb and and that you all the time self-fooling.”

    Your comment would be half the size without your dumb attacks.

    “The root of all types of intelligence is the minimally correct pattern recognition and it’s mean: Perfect reflection of exterior environment, it’s start from body perception of exterior environment it is interacting, feeling and extrapolate to mind/nucleus of body namely in ADVANCED species. But as environment are diverse life adaptation must need to adapt/selecting the fittest to this diversity of environments.”

    Even “non-advanced” species have this ability. Try again.

    Leave your idiotic and baseless attacks put of your next comment.

    Still says nothing to the fact that there is no concrete definition of what “intelligence” is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Personal training pedantically scientist...

    Idiots have that ability to irritates everyone even monks via their strategic defenses: SELF PROJECTION. What you call me it's what your poor mind prevent you to think that it's you. It's just like a fat person calling other non-fat person a white whale.

    Here we go. I hope it's don't be longer.

    Straw man. People already have solid conceptual basis of intelligence and this solid basis are all more or less correct. But they are incomplete. "Intelligence is the capacity to adapt". Yes it's too, but not only this.

    Never a true arguments always this vague sentences. Now I will expect automaton here AGAIN "explain" what is a argument.

    "To say humans are special is retarded"

    Characteristically from you. Your personal opinions don't matter. Why do you think like that? ;)))

    "Nobody knows what intelligence is"

    And Guido still use " " to the word intelligence, lol. Do you know why people use " " to certain words.

    Little example

    "race"

    It's a educated sarcasm to say "I don't believe human races is: true or important". So you believe intelligence is not true/a real thing or important??
    , @Santoculto
    Very successful exercising your BODY muscles but not your BRAIN muscles.

    My analysis on your personal facts is in response to your first and idiotic attack, of course, your precious personal opinions and never a true reasoning.

    Yes it's was exactly what you mean but you said "nobody knows". Even to write your personal opinions you aren't successful and in your mother tongue.

    "Even a non advanced species have this ability"

    You, obviously, don't understand why I wrote this in this comment.

    "Nobody know what """intelligence"""" is"

    But all types of intelligent behavior have as common roots the minimally correct pattern recognition. Hum? Derstand now?

    "Still say nothing to the fact blablabla"

    Don't understand but I don't think it's because my English but it's because your lower reasoning levels.

    Because people compare a parrot abilities with human abilities or even among humans (mentalism-mechanicism spectrum..no only for humans) they still don't understand that all this abilities have a common origin or principle: Pattern recognition, highest to lowest levels in quant and qual and in types. Everything about living beings behaviors start from pattern recognition, even body-adaptation. And everything about adaptation is about behavior and is about intelligence and humans have the biggest intelligence. It's must be easier to accept but weaker minded people tend to be incapable to grasp this obvious facts.
    Everything is pattern recognition and emotional judgment but the direction/type that make people cognitively and psychologically different.

  34. Well, the Nature article says that the plexin pathway has no apparent physiological significance amongst this group. Hence the “psychological” effect must be some kind of MAGICAL result.

    “”””The plexin-semaphorin pathway has beenlinked to axon guidance,42mental disability and neuralconnectivity,43axon regeneration in the central nervous system,bone disorders, cancer and inflammatory diseases.44Noticeably,the top biological pathway was GO:SEMAPHORIN_RECEPTOR_AC-TIVITY with P-value = 5.82 × 10− 4; however, it was not significant.”””

    On the other hand, ADAM12 has been known to be involved in various diseases for a long time.

    Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013 Oct;1830(10):4445-55. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2013.05.011. Epub 2013 May 13.
    A disintegrin and metalloproteinase-12 (ADAM12): function, roles in disease progression, and clinical implications.

    Nyren-Erickson EK1, Jones JM, Srivastava DK, Mallik S.
    Author information
    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:
    A disintegrin and metalloproteinase-12 (ADAM12) is a member of the greater ADAM family of enzymes: these are multifunctional, generally membrane-bound, zinc proteases for which there are forty genes known (21 of these appearing in humans). ADAM12 has been implicated in the pathogenesis of various cancers, liver fibrogenesis, hypertension, and asthma, and its elevation or decrease in human serum has been linked to these and other physiological/pathological conditions.

    Much the same is true for the plexins – involved in many diseases.

    Drug Resist Updat. 2016 Nov;29:1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.drup.2016.08.001. Epub 2016 Aug 28.
    The semaphorins and their receptors as modulators of tumor progression.

    Neufeld G1, Mumblat Y2, Smolkin T2, Toledano S2, Nir-Zvi I2, Ziv K2, Kessler O2.
    Author information
    Abstract
    The semaphorins were initially characterized as repulsive axon guidance factors. However, they are currently also recognized as important regulators of diverse biological processes which include regulation of immune responses, angiogenesis, organogenesis, and a variety of additional physiological and developmental functions. The semaphorin family consists of more than 20 genes divided into seven subfamilies, all of which contain the sema domain signature. They usually transduce signals by activation of receptors belonging to the plexin family, either directly, or indirectly following the binding of some semaphorins to receptors of the neuropilin family which subsequently associate with plexins…..

    So, these high IQ people are especially susceptible to many fatal disease like cancer, kidney disease, ……. ? And they only survive in highly protected environments that can afford major investments in their education?

    Strange that the “psychologists” decide what the “goal” of their study is beforehand and then ignore all other possible explanations for their results.

    Another typical “big data” wanking.

    Read More
  35. @RaceRealist88
    I'm disregarding your childish attacks.

    "If none supposedly know what intelligence is so why believe pretend to know?? If this idiotic statement that is very characteristic from you is true so entire Thompson posts would do any sense."

    Everyone seems to have a definition but there is no agreed upon one. Characteristic of me? You don't do any reading so you wouldn't know.

    "humans are special in their own way as every species, period."

    Novel information. To say humans are "special" compared to the rest of the animal kingdom is retarded.

    "But, I thought it’s a self projection when you say”we are not that special”."

    Don't worry about me. I'm very successful in what I do in life.

    "Because most psychologists have difficult to establish a common concept to intelligence probably because it’s doesn’t exist at least in its specific development it doesn’t mean nobody know what intelligence is"

    Yes that's exactly what it means.

    "Again it’s a self projection of your personal misery. Dumb and no have a pale idea that you are that dumb and and that you all the time self-fooling."

    Your comment would be half the size without your dumb attacks.

    "The root of all types of intelligence is the minimally correct pattern recognition and it’s mean: Perfect reflection of exterior environment, it’s start from body perception of exterior environment it is interacting, feeling and extrapolate to mind/nucleus of body namely in ADVANCED species. But as environment are diverse life adaptation must need to adapt/selecting the fittest to this diversity of environments."

    Even "non-advanced" species have this ability. Try again.

    Leave your idiotic and baseless attacks put of your next comment.

    Still says nothing to the fact that there is no concrete definition of what "intelligence" is.

    Personal training pedantically scientist…

    Idiots have that ability to irritates everyone even monks via their strategic defenses: SELF PROJECTION. What you call me it’s what your poor mind prevent you to think that it’s you. It’s just like a fat person calling other non-fat person a white whale.

    Here we go. I hope it’s don’t be longer.

    Straw man. People already have solid conceptual basis of intelligence and this solid basis are all more or less correct. But they are incomplete. “Intelligence is the capacity to adapt”. Yes it’s too, but not only this.

    Never a true arguments always this vague sentences. Now I will expect automaton here AGAIN “explain” what is a argument.

    “To say humans are special is retarded”

    Characteristically from you. Your personal opinions don’t matter. Why do you think like that? ;)))

    “Nobody knows what intelligence is”

    And Guido still use ” ” to the word intelligence, lol. Do you know why people use ” ” to certain words.

    Little example

    “race”

    It’s a educated sarcasm to say “I don’t believe human races is: true or important”. So you believe intelligence is not true/a real thing or important??

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Personal training pedantically scientist…"

    Background in anatomy, physiology, and nutrition. What about you?

    "Straw man. People already have solid conceptual basis of intelligence and this solid basis are all more or less correct. But they are incomplete. “Intelligence is the capacity to adapt”. Yes it’s too, but not only this."

    It's literally not a strawman. Check Arthur Jensen’s book The g Factor if you don't believe me.

    "Never a true arguments always this vague sentences. Now I will expect automaton here AGAIN “explain” what is a argument."

    You don't know what an argument is.

    All As are Bs. Are all Bs As? That's something called "logic". Use some syllogistic logic and get back to me. Which is two premises followed by a conclusion.

    "Characteristically from you. Your personal opinions don’t matter. Why do you think like that? ;)))"

    It's called "anthropocentric bias", why should we be the measuring sticks?

    "And Guido still use ” ” to the word intelligence, lol. Do you know why people use ” ” to certain words."

    Yes I did because there is no set definition.

    "It’s a educated sarcasm to say “I don’t believe human races is: true or important”. So you believe intelligence is not true/a real thing or important??"

    Don't put words in my mouth. There is no definition that everyone accepts. That's why I used scarequotes.

    "Very successful exercising your BODY muscles but not your BRAIN muscles."

    Funny. Go to my first posts in this thread and see me exercise my "brain muscles". I do all the time for my line of work.

    "Yes it’s was exactly what you mean but you said “nobody knows”. Even to write your personal opinions you aren’t successful and in your mother tongue."

    Well for starters there is no theory of why individuals differ in intelligence.

    Seems pretty big to me.

    "You, obviously, don’t understand why I wrote this in this comment."

    I did. All living organisms show a semblance of intelligence. This is a fact.

    "But all types of intelligent behavior have as common roots the minimally correct pattern recognition. Hum? Derstand now?"

    So if it's just pattern recognition then why is there no accepted definition? Why so many definitions?

    "Don’t understand but I don’t think it’s because my English but it’s because your lower reasoning levels."

    It's because you type word salad without structure to your comments at all. My reasoning is fine my friend. You just don't understand what I write.

    "Because people compare a parrot abilities with human abilities or even among humans (mentalism-mechanicism spectrum..no only for humans) they still don’t understand that all this abilities have a common origin or principle: Pattern recognition, highest to lowest levels in quant and qual and in types. Everything about living beings behaviors start from pattern recognition, even body-adaptation. And everything about adaptation is about behavior and is about intelligence and humans have the biggest intelligence. It’s must be easier to accept but weaker minded people tend to be incapable to grasp this obvious facts."

    Cool story. Not formulate this into a theory of why individuals differ in intelligence. This field sorely lacks that.

    So, again, if it's that easy---if it's just largely pattern recognition---then why is there no set definition? Why don't psychologists agree on a definition? You've yet to answer my question.

  36. @RaceRealist88
    I'm disregarding your childish attacks.

    "If none supposedly know what intelligence is so why believe pretend to know?? If this idiotic statement that is very characteristic from you is true so entire Thompson posts would do any sense."

    Everyone seems to have a definition but there is no agreed upon one. Characteristic of me? You don't do any reading so you wouldn't know.

    "humans are special in their own way as every species, period."

    Novel information. To say humans are "special" compared to the rest of the animal kingdom is retarded.

    "But, I thought it’s a self projection when you say”we are not that special”."

    Don't worry about me. I'm very successful in what I do in life.

    "Because most psychologists have difficult to establish a common concept to intelligence probably because it’s doesn’t exist at least in its specific development it doesn’t mean nobody know what intelligence is"

    Yes that's exactly what it means.

    "Again it’s a self projection of your personal misery. Dumb and no have a pale idea that you are that dumb and and that you all the time self-fooling."

    Your comment would be half the size without your dumb attacks.

    "The root of all types of intelligence is the minimally correct pattern recognition and it’s mean: Perfect reflection of exterior environment, it’s start from body perception of exterior environment it is interacting, feeling and extrapolate to mind/nucleus of body namely in ADVANCED species. But as environment are diverse life adaptation must need to adapt/selecting the fittest to this diversity of environments."

    Even "non-advanced" species have this ability. Try again.

    Leave your idiotic and baseless attacks put of your next comment.

    Still says nothing to the fact that there is no concrete definition of what "intelligence" is.

    Very successful exercising your BODY muscles but not your BRAIN muscles.

    My analysis on your personal facts is in response to your first and idiotic attack, of course, your precious personal opinions and never a true reasoning.

    Yes it’s was exactly what you mean but you said “nobody knows”. Even to write your personal opinions you aren’t successful and in your mother tongue.

    “Even a non advanced species have this ability”

    You, obviously, don’t understand why I wrote this in this comment.

    “Nobody know what “””intelligence”””” is”

    But all types of intelligent behavior have as common roots the minimally correct pattern recognition. Hum? Derstand now?

    “Still say nothing to the fact blablabla”

    Don’t understand but I don’t think it’s because my English but it’s because your lower reasoning levels.

    Because people compare a parrot abilities with human abilities or even among humans (mentalism-mechanicism spectrum..no only for humans) they still don’t understand that all this abilities have a common origin or principle: Pattern recognition, highest to lowest levels in quant and qual and in types. Everything about living beings behaviors start from pattern recognition, even body-adaptation. And everything about adaptation is about behavior and is about intelligence and humans have the biggest intelligence. It’s must be easier to accept but weaker minded people tend to be incapable to grasp this obvious facts.
    Everything is pattern recognition and emotional judgment but the direction/type that make people cognitively and psychologically different.

    Read More
  37. @Santoculto
    Personal training pedantically scientist...

    Idiots have that ability to irritates everyone even monks via their strategic defenses: SELF PROJECTION. What you call me it's what your poor mind prevent you to think that it's you. It's just like a fat person calling other non-fat person a white whale.

    Here we go. I hope it's don't be longer.

    Straw man. People already have solid conceptual basis of intelligence and this solid basis are all more or less correct. But they are incomplete. "Intelligence is the capacity to adapt". Yes it's too, but not only this.

    Never a true arguments always this vague sentences. Now I will expect automaton here AGAIN "explain" what is a argument.

    "To say humans are special is retarded"

    Characteristically from you. Your personal opinions don't matter. Why do you think like that? ;)))

    "Nobody knows what intelligence is"

    And Guido still use " " to the word intelligence, lol. Do you know why people use " " to certain words.

    Little example

    "race"

    It's a educated sarcasm to say "I don't believe human races is: true or important". So you believe intelligence is not true/a real thing or important??

    “Personal training pedantically scientist…”

    Background in anatomy, physiology, and nutrition. What about you?

    “Straw man. People already have solid conceptual basis of intelligence and this solid basis are all more or less correct. But they are incomplete. “Intelligence is the capacity to adapt”. Yes it’s too, but not only this.”

    It’s literally not a strawman. Check Arthur Jensen’s book The g Factor if you don’t believe me.

    “Never a true arguments always this vague sentences. Now I will expect automaton here AGAIN “explain” what is a argument.”

    You don’t know what an argument is.

    All As are Bs. Are all Bs As? That’s something called “logic”. Use some syllogistic logic and get back to me. Which is two premises followed by a conclusion.

    “Characteristically from you. Your personal opinions don’t matter. Why do you think like that? ;)))”

    It’s called “anthropocentric bias”, why should we be the measuring sticks?

    “And Guido still use ” ” to the word intelligence, lol. Do you know why people use ” ” to certain words.”

    Yes I did because there is no set definition.

    “It’s a educated sarcasm to say “I don’t believe human races is: true or important”. So you believe intelligence is not true/a real thing or important??”

    Don’t put words in my mouth. There is no definition that everyone accepts. That’s why I used scarequotes.

    “Very successful exercising your BODY muscles but not your BRAIN muscles.”

    Funny. Go to my first posts in this thread and see me exercise my “brain muscles”. I do all the time for my line of work.

    “Yes it’s was exactly what you mean but you said “nobody knows”. Even to write your personal opinions you aren’t successful and in your mother tongue.”

    Well for starters there is no theory of why individuals differ in intelligence.

    Seems pretty big to me.

    “You, obviously, don’t understand why I wrote this in this comment.”

    I did. All living organisms show a semblance of intelligence. This is a fact.

    “But all types of intelligent behavior have as common roots the minimally correct pattern recognition. Hum? Derstand now?”

    So if it’s just pattern recognition then why is there no accepted definition? Why so many definitions?

    “Don’t understand but I don’t think it’s because my English but it’s because your lower reasoning levels.”

    It’s because you type word salad without structure to your comments at all. My reasoning is fine my friend. You just don’t understand what I write.

    “Because people compare a parrot abilities with human abilities or even among humans (mentalism-mechanicism spectrum..no only for humans) they still don’t understand that all this abilities have a common origin or principle: Pattern recognition, highest to lowest levels in quant and qual and in types. Everything about living beings behaviors start from pattern recognition, even body-adaptation. And everything about adaptation is about behavior and is about intelligence and humans have the biggest intelligence. It’s must be easier to accept but weaker minded people tend to be incapable to grasp this obvious facts.”

    Cool story. Not formulate this into a theory of why individuals differ in intelligence. This field sorely lacks that.

    So, again, if it’s that easy—if it’s just largely pattern recognition—then why is there no set definition? Why don’t psychologists agree on a definition? You’ve yet to answer my question.

    Read More
  38. @RaceRealist88
    "He is part of numerous trope of people on “intelligence research” that don’t know what intelligence is"

    No body knows what "intelligence" is. From psychologists to the layman. That's something you yourself need to understand.

    I took the intro-psych course my freshman year in 1979. The instructor, a very charismatic individual named Roland Miller, said that there was no universally agreed upon definition of what intelligence is. So I came up with my own: [Human] intelligence is the sum total of mental attributes that contributes to our survival, in both the near and the long term, and to achieving a standard of living beyond mere survival.

    I’m sure that we can poke all kinds of holes in that definition. Good hand-eye coordination can contribute to our survival, but is a mental or physical attribute or both? Compassion, empathy, sympathy, altruism can contribute to the survival of our tribe in the long run but get us as individuals killed in the short run. Giving your meager share of food to a pregnant member of the tribe. Throwing yourself on a grenade to save your buddies. My $0.02.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "So I came up with my own: [Human] intelligence is the sum total of mental attributes that contributes to our survival, in both the near and the long term, and to achieving a standard of living beyond mere survival."

    Is this what psychologists are measuring? Can you imagine one of these IQ 170 individuals surviving when shit hits the fan? Can you imagine one of these individuals surviving without the structure of modern society?
  39. @Dr. T
    These numbers are calculated assuming normal distribution of IQ. At these extreme edges very small deviations in the shape of the distribution significantly change the numbers. They thus should be taken with a huge grain of salt. However, in this case the IQ 170 limit fits very good with a cutoff of 0.0003%. I would thus assume that the % symbol was lost during the editing process. This seems to have occurred already in an earlier paper and carried over.

    “These numbers are calculated assuming normal distribution of IQ. At these extreme edges very small deviations in the shape of the distribution significantly change the numbers. They thus should be taken with a huge grain of salt. However, in this case the IQ 170 limit fits very good with a cutoff of 0.0003%. I would thus assume that the % symbol was lost during the editing process. This seems to have occurred already in an earlier paper and carried over.”

    Let me just put it this way: I don’t have an IQ of 170.

    Read More
  40. Only a background…. underground is for few.

    A lot of academics are very stupid. Don’t prove nothing. Your (lack of) reasoning here already proved about your capacity.

    Despising the second garbage.

    Third sentence… Here we go…

    I’m becoming a Nostradamus of failed reasoned people. To the next, fourth sentence or “reply”…

    Anthropocentric bias is “humans are totally superior” and not “humans are superior where they are superior”. You even know what is it.

    Not. It’s what I already told about why people use ” “.

    I don’t put words In your mouth even because you even know why people usually use quotas. Indefinite is not unfactual but what I already said, intelligence concepts are incomplete.

    “There is not theory of why individuals differ in intelligence”

    Only in your own self-unknown intellectual limitations.

    “Just” pattern recognition…

    I will not explain again what you failed to understand. The problem is yours.

    Pathetic Guido…

    My comments only have structures. This make them minimally understand. The few things you wrote I understand very well and most of them are grossly wrong. Reasoning is want you wasn’t born with and ALL THE TIME you show why you are THAT dumbest in the room.

    If to you it’s just a “story” so it’s only prove why you are one of the dumbest here.

    I ALREADY wrote above. If you want search by yourself. Good. I don’t care.

    Repete before me.

    “I’m the dumbest guy in the hdb sphere”.

    50 times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    After

    -_-
    , @RaceRealist88
    "Anthropocentric bias is “humans are totally superior” and not “humans are superior where they are superior”. You even know what is it."

    1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
    2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.


    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anthropocentrism

    Definition 2 is apt.

    "I don’t put words In your mouth even because you even know why people usually use quotas. Indefinite is not unfactual but what I already said, intelligence concepts are incomplete."

    They're much more than that. I explained why I used scarequotes; there is no accepted definition. Talk to 50 psychologists and get 50 different answers.

    "Only in your own self-unknown intellectual limitations."

    So explain the theory of individual intelligence differences if you know it.

    "My comments only have structures. This make them minimally understand. The few things you wrote I understand very well and most of them are grossly wrong. Reasoning is want you wasn’t born with and ALL THE TIME you show why you are THAT dumbest in the room."

    No they don't. It's just incoherent rambling. Word salad. I know logic, do you?

    If psychologists don't have a set definition for intelligence, then they don't know what they are studying.

    Let's get to the heart of the matter and let's see if you can follow this: Psychologists state that general intelligence is physiological. Psychologists rank this supposed physiological trait. To the best of my knowledge, physiologists don't study general intelligence (I have an in-use textbook by Kenneth Saladin called Anatomy & Physiology: The Unity of Form and Function and not once is general intelligence---or intelligence itself---mentioned. So if general intelligence is indeed physiological, then why don't physiologists study it? And even if they did, they would not rank it in an order as psychologists do.

    Screw all the other stuff. Just address that above paragraph. I don't have time to waste on your ramblings.
  41. @Santoculto
    Only a background.... underground is for few.

    A lot of academics are very stupid. Don't prove nothing. Your (lack of) reasoning here already proved about your capacity.

    Despising the second garbage.

    Third sentence... Here we go...

    I'm becoming a Nostradamus of failed reasoned people. To the next, fourth sentence or "reply"...

    Anthropocentric bias is "humans are totally superior" and not "humans are superior where they are superior". You even know what is it.

    Not. It's what I already told about why people use " ".

    I don't put words In your mouth even because you even know why people usually use quotas. Indefinite is not unfactual but what I already said, intelligence concepts are incomplete.

    "There is not theory of why individuals differ in intelligence"

    Only in your own self-unknown intellectual limitations.

    "Just" pattern recognition...

    I will not explain again what you failed to understand. The problem is yours.

    Pathetic Guido...

    My comments only have structures. This make them minimally understand. The few things you wrote I understand very well and most of them are grossly wrong. Reasoning is want you wasn't born with and ALL THE TIME you show why you are THAT dumbest in the room.

    If to you it's just a "story" so it's only prove why you are one of the dumbest here.

    I ALREADY wrote above. If you want search by yourself. Good. I don't care.

    Repete before me.

    "I'm the dumbest guy in the hdb sphere".

    50 times.

    After

    -_-

    Read More
  42. @Santoculto
    Only a background.... underground is for few.

    A lot of academics are very stupid. Don't prove nothing. Your (lack of) reasoning here already proved about your capacity.

    Despising the second garbage.

    Third sentence... Here we go...

    I'm becoming a Nostradamus of failed reasoned people. To the next, fourth sentence or "reply"...

    Anthropocentric bias is "humans are totally superior" and not "humans are superior where they are superior". You even know what is it.

    Not. It's what I already told about why people use " ".

    I don't put words In your mouth even because you even know why people usually use quotas. Indefinite is not unfactual but what I already said, intelligence concepts are incomplete.

    "There is not theory of why individuals differ in intelligence"

    Only in your own self-unknown intellectual limitations.

    "Just" pattern recognition...

    I will not explain again what you failed to understand. The problem is yours.

    Pathetic Guido...

    My comments only have structures. This make them minimally understand. The few things you wrote I understand very well and most of them are grossly wrong. Reasoning is want you wasn't born with and ALL THE TIME you show why you are THAT dumbest in the room.

    If to you it's just a "story" so it's only prove why you are one of the dumbest here.

    I ALREADY wrote above. If you want search by yourself. Good. I don't care.

    Repete before me.

    "I'm the dumbest guy in the hdb sphere".

    50 times.

    “Anthropocentric bias is “humans are totally superior” and not “humans are superior where they are superior”. You even know what is it.”

    1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
    2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anthropocentrism

    Definition 2 is apt.

    “I don’t put words In your mouth even because you even know why people usually use quotas. Indefinite is not unfactual but what I already said, intelligence concepts are incomplete.”

    They’re much more than that. I explained why I used scarequotes; there is no accepted definition. Talk to 50 psychologists and get 50 different answers.

    “Only in your own self-unknown intellectual limitations.”

    So explain the theory of individual intelligence differences if you know it.

    “My comments only have structures. This make them minimally understand. The few things you wrote I understand very well and most of them are grossly wrong. Reasoning is want you wasn’t born with and ALL THE TIME you show why you are THAT dumbest in the room.”

    No they don’t. It’s just incoherent rambling. Word salad. I know logic, do you?

    If psychologists don’t have a set definition for intelligence, then they don’t know what they are studying.

    Let’s get to the heart of the matter and let’s see if you can follow this: Psychologists state that general intelligence is physiological. Psychologists rank this supposed physiological trait. To the best of my knowledge, physiologists don’t study general intelligence (I have an in-use textbook by Kenneth Saladin called Anatomy & Physiology: The Unity of Form and Function and not once is general intelligence—or intelligence itself—mentioned. So if general intelligence is indeed physiological, then why don’t physiologists study it? And even if they did, they would not rank it in an order as psychologists do.

    Screw all the other stuff. Just address that above paragraph. I don’t have time to waste on your ramblings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    ''“Anthropocentric bias is “humans are totally superior” and not “humans are superior where they are superior”. You even know what is it.”

    1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
    2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.''

    Jeezis, your brain is in decomposition.

    ...central element of the universe ==== [totally superior]

    Very dumb, incapable to understand easiest things but you think it's capable to understand the very difficult ones... a poor soul.

    They’re much more than that. I explained why I used scarequotes; there is no accepted definition. Talk to 50 psychologists and get 50 different answers.
     
    Your entire try to resist in this already won-debate must be interpreted as a sign of courage but not, it's just pathetic and extremely irritating.

    I will not repeat myself, over over again.

    No they don’t. It’s just incoherent rambling. Word salad. I know logic, do you?
     
    Dear, even if it's true, so you would not be capable to read my comments to start, it's just your HUGE intellectual dishonesty + HUGE stupidity that abort any hope about your reasoning skills. Lunatic!!!

    And, what logic have to do with it*

    In the absolutely perfect human world, you must used your muscles in manual tasks and not self-deceiving in some obscure ivory tower to believe you're capable to understand basic science. A typical NON-SCIENTIST academic.

    So explain the theory of individual intelligence differences if you know it.
     
    No, i already explain above partially my hypothesis.

    If psychologists don’t have a set definition for intelligence, then they don’t know what they are studying.
     
    Now you need to say that psychology is a pseudo-science....

    You're in contradictions AGAIN or it's just a impression**

    I don’t have time to waste on your ramblings.
     
    In his core you know i'm infinitely smarter than you and only because i'm infinitely more self-aware than you, supposedly the simplest things...

    Yes, supposedly you don't have time to waste with me, but it was you who started to waste your time isn't*

    I already told you, when i want laugh i watch series, namely some 70's mexican ones. If you want preserve your pseudo-pride to be a pseudo-scientist academic, but pretend to be, just avoid contact me to say the SAME NONSENSE VAGUENESS.

    You're completely idiotic, extremely stupid, i'm that guy who entertain PP blog because i'm a good person and i have mercy with stupid people, it's just a question of time for people really know who i'm, if they really want.. and in the end, i don't care. Subconsciously you know who i'm and this make you lost your poor and little head, because you're a sub-human.

    I hope you finally learn the lesson and stop to this masochism even you deserve even worst than just someone angelical as me talking inconvenient truths to you about yourself.
    , @lavoisier
    They will probably study it some day when it can be more precisely measured. Now it is just an abstraction--IQ tests.

    In the future, the number of synapses per square centimeter of the cerebral cortex might become a good physiologic approximation for intelligence.

    Brain volume as measured by imaging studies such as MRI is also emerging as a pretty useful tool to estimate intelligence. Smarter people have bigger brains, and people with unique talents such as musicians have bigger brains in distinct locations within the brain. In other words, we are finding physiologic correlates for intelligence.

    Cerebral cortex convolutions per square centimeter of brain matter might also become useful.

    Bottom line: Just because it cannot be measured today does not mean that we will never be able to measure it.

    It is just a matter of time provided the inquiry can continue.
  43. @Jeff77450
    I took the intro-psych course my freshman year in 1979. The instructor, a very charismatic individual named Roland Miller, said that there was no universally agreed upon definition of what intelligence is. So I came up with my own: [Human] intelligence is the sum total of mental attributes that contributes to our survival, in both the near and the long term, and to achieving a standard of living beyond mere survival.

    I'm sure that we can poke all kinds of holes in that definition. Good hand-eye coordination can contribute to our survival, but is a mental or physical attribute or both? Compassion, empathy, sympathy, altruism can contribute to the survival of our tribe in the long run but get us as individuals killed in the short run. Giving your meager share of food to a pregnant member of the tribe. Throwing yourself on a grenade to save your buddies. My $0.02.

    “So I came up with my own: [Human] intelligence is the sum total of mental attributes that contributes to our survival, in both the near and the long term, and to achieving a standard of living beyond mere survival.”

    Is this what psychologists are measuring? Can you imagine one of these IQ 170 individuals surviving when shit hits the fan? Can you imagine one of these individuals surviving without the structure of modern society?

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    Absolutely.

    If an IQ test reflects to a significant degree problem solving ability my bet is with the 170 IQ guy over the guy with the 110 IQ. This is particularly true the more challenging the environmental pressures that are faced.

    IQ is not the only thing that matters, but it is pretty darn important for sure.
    , @Jeff77450
    This isn't profound but a lot of people would be dead without the structure of modern society, regardless of IQ. Stephen M. Stirling explores this in his Emberverse series of novels, most especially the first one, _Dies the Fire_, when technology first stops working. Steven King explored this theme in his novel _The Stand_.

    The attributes most conducive to survival differ depending on the environment & circumstances. Yes, an individual with an IQ of 170 in the developed world is probably "book smart," and if we dropped him in the middle of the Amazon he'd probably be dead within a few days. But if we extracted a hunter-gatherer from the middle of the Amazon and dropped him in the middle of Manhattan in the winter, he might also be dead in a matter of days or even hours.

    As an aside, at the age of 58, if there is going to be an apocalypse comparable to either _The Postman_ or _The Road_, I don't want to survive it. I don't want to live in a world where at the end of the day I can't take a hot shower and have a bourbon-and-(diet)coke in the evening. (And pizza, gotta have pizza).

    You seem to have some hostility to the general topic of IQ. I can't help but wonder why that is.
  44. @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed "genius" is a term reasonably applied by those bright enough to have some understanding of the output of the genius and its significance to someone who produces ideas or solutions which come as from intuition and whose development cannot be quickly understood. Thus it is hardly surprising that Mozart or Picasso may seem a genius to me whereas the not insignificant number of people I have known whose IQs have been measured at >175 are most striking to me for the speed at which they do understandable things with words and number related ideas. The high IQ judge will see three steps ahead in counsel"s argument but maybe it is counsel with "genius" who intuits the way to get through to that clever judge's quick brain without even being able, at least in advance, to articulate what he is doing.

    So yes the speed of brain which one tends to associate with high IQ and "genius" probably helps contribute to the sense of something a bit mysterious.

    Darn unlikely that you’ve known a not insignificant number of people with IQs above 175.

    Such people are about 1/1M. So roughly 330 of them in the USA. Except there are probably a few more because it’s likely a goodly percentage of them born elsewhere immigrate here.

    So, statistically speaking, if you live in a city of 1M, there’s one person of this IQ living there. But even this is unlikely because they tend to cluster and it’s probable the majority of such people in the US are found in the obvious areas: the Northeast and Silicon Valley.

    Now it is entirely possible you’ve known a good many people who claim an IQ above 175. :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Without breaching good manners/privacy I can cite three people I have broken bread with that I met via Steve Sailer's egroup one of whom, given his facinating career and friendships could be believed when he wrote that the nuns had had his IQ measured at 183. Then there is our host with his published 214 that leaves a fair margin for error and another mathematically inclined chap who used the expression Six Sigmas so as to clearly include himself and, anyway was one of the very rare 1600 SAT scorers before the SAT was dumbed down...! Then there is my favourite sister-in-law whose mother owned a prep school and told me it was so irritatìng to find her (dyslexic) daughter having trouble with spelling that she had her IQ tested and it was 173 (probably like her amateur chess champion father) and that a few years later her secondary school had it at 175. She's the sort of person who - bypassing the dyslexic problem - reads at twice the speed of most fast readers and tells you "whodunnit" in an Agatha Christie novel two thirds of the way through. My earliest is a school friend who became a particle physicist at Cambridge before becoming a leading intellectual property lawyer appearing in the highest courts. I happened to see school records recording, inter alia, his IQ score as 183. True there was another one much lower, barely Ivy League President level but, as he himself joked decades later he must have been having a bad day. As I noted in another comment the demographics have been changing radically since Cyril Burt could find a big >170 bump in English boys. The clever woman who once married the vicar and had eight children by her early 30s now gets a second degree and has one autistic child at 33 after which she stops or has just one more. A few years ago I met an Englishwoman with four daughters of whom three were at Oxbridge. Apparently she had seven uncles who were all Oxbridge graduates. No more.... even acknowledging that getting ito Oxbridge was less competitive more than 50 years ago.
  45. Color me surprised. High levels of IQ are the result of inheriting lots of little genetic advantages in essentially a random drawing. Genius is like a rogue wave. Some races have a gene pool that looks like choppy water so they get a bunch of smart and dumb people. Other races have a gene pool that looks like placid water. You’ll only get a little splash from time to time. Mostly you get a bunch of people with similar intelligence.

    Read More
  46. @RaceRealist88
    "Anthropocentric bias is “humans are totally superior” and not “humans are superior where they are superior”. You even know what is it."

    1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
    2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.


    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anthropocentrism

    Definition 2 is apt.

    "I don’t put words In your mouth even because you even know why people usually use quotas. Indefinite is not unfactual but what I already said, intelligence concepts are incomplete."

    They're much more than that. I explained why I used scarequotes; there is no accepted definition. Talk to 50 psychologists and get 50 different answers.

    "Only in your own self-unknown intellectual limitations."

    So explain the theory of individual intelligence differences if you know it.

    "My comments only have structures. This make them minimally understand. The few things you wrote I understand very well and most of them are grossly wrong. Reasoning is want you wasn’t born with and ALL THE TIME you show why you are THAT dumbest in the room."

    No they don't. It's just incoherent rambling. Word salad. I know logic, do you?

    If psychologists don't have a set definition for intelligence, then they don't know what they are studying.

    Let's get to the heart of the matter and let's see if you can follow this: Psychologists state that general intelligence is physiological. Psychologists rank this supposed physiological trait. To the best of my knowledge, physiologists don't study general intelligence (I have an in-use textbook by Kenneth Saladin called Anatomy & Physiology: The Unity of Form and Function and not once is general intelligence---or intelligence itself---mentioned. So if general intelligence is indeed physiological, then why don't physiologists study it? And even if they did, they would not rank it in an order as psychologists do.

    Screw all the other stuff. Just address that above paragraph. I don't have time to waste on your ramblings.

    ”“Anthropocentric bias is “humans are totally superior” and not “humans are superior where they are superior”. You even know what is it.”

    1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
    2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.”

    Jeezis, your brain is in decomposition.

    …central element of the universe ==== [totally superior]

    Very dumb, incapable to understand easiest things but you think it’s capable to understand the very difficult ones… a poor soul.

    They’re much more than that. I explained why I used scarequotes; there is no accepted definition. Talk to 50 psychologists and get 50 different answers.

    Your entire try to resist in this already won-debate must be interpreted as a sign of courage but not, it’s just pathetic and extremely irritating.

    I will not repeat myself, over over again.

    No they don’t. It’s just incoherent rambling. Word salad. I know logic, do you?

    Dear, even if it’s true, so you would not be capable to read my comments to start, it’s just your HUGE intellectual dishonesty + HUGE stupidity that abort any hope about your reasoning skills. Lunatic!!!

    And, what logic have to do with it*

    In the absolutely perfect human world, you must used your muscles in manual tasks and not self-deceiving in some obscure ivory tower to believe you’re capable to understand basic science. A typical NON-SCIENTIST academic.

    So explain the theory of individual intelligence differences if you know it.

    No, i already explain above partially my hypothesis.

    If psychologists don’t have a set definition for intelligence, then they don’t know what they are studying.

    Now you need to say that psychology is a pseudo-science….

    You’re in contradictions AGAIN or it’s just a impression**

    I don’t have time to waste on your ramblings.

    In his core you know i’m infinitely smarter than you and only because i’m infinitely more self-aware than you, supposedly the simplest things…

    Yes, supposedly you don’t have time to waste with me, but it was you who started to waste your time isn’t*

    I already told you, when i want laugh i watch series, namely some 70′s mexican ones. If you want preserve your pseudo-pride to be a pseudo-scientist academic, but pretend to be, just avoid contact me to say the SAME NONSENSE VAGUENESS.

    You’re completely idiotic, extremely stupid, i’m that guy who entertain PP blog because i’m a good person and i have mercy with stupid people, it’s just a question of time for people really know who i’m, if they really want.. and in the end, i don’t care. Subconsciously you know who i’m and this make you lost your poor and little head, because you’re a sub-human.

    I hope you finally learn the lesson and stop to this masochism even you deserve even worst than just someone angelical as me talking inconvenient truths to you about yourself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "And, what logic have to do with it*"

    Lol

    "No, i already explain above partially my hypothesis."

    Maybe I missed it. Explain to me the mechanisms of individual intelligence differences.

    "If psychologists don’t have a set definition for intelligence, then they don’t know what they are studying."

    Now you need to say that psychology is a pseudo-science…."
     
    Lol. You didn't reply to my statement again. Try again.

    The rest of your comment was literally dumb attacks. Have fun wasting your time spewing garbage.
  47. @PaulD
    "with heritability increasing from 40% in childhood to 80% in later adulthood"

    Eh, what does THAT mean?
    Children tend not to reproduce so how can they have a heritability of 40%. How can this increase as they become adults?
    This is not well phrased, nor explained In fact, it is not written, dare I say it, intelligently!

    If I get this wrong after reading razib for all these years, I deserve to be punished, but here is my attempt:

    1)
    Heritability measures the proportion of the observed variance that can be attributed to genetics.
    We’re talking here about the observed variance in intelligence among children and then among adults. It’s reasonable to attribute some of that variance to genetics and some of that variance to other factors like for example, nutrition. Therefore, “variance in genetic endowment” explains some of the observed variance in intelligence and “variance in life circumstances” explains most of the rest. Assume that we are able to measure the proportion of the observed variance that can be attributed to genetics. We call that “heritability”.

    2)
    Why would heritability increase with the age of the subjects ?
    At older ages, you can once again observe variance in intelligence and once again attribute some to “variance in genetic endowment” and some to “variance in life circumstances”. I’m not sure about the technical details, but when one does that, one notices that the proportion of the observed variance that can be attributed to genetics is greater than when the subject was younger. The heritability is found to be greater than at younger ages.

    This pattern is observed from childhood to adulthood. Not sure what happens to heritability when one gets into very old age.

    Read More
  48. @RaceRealist88
    "So I came up with my own: [Human] intelligence is the sum total of mental attributes that contributes to our survival, in both the near and the long term, and to achieving a standard of living beyond mere survival."

    Is this what psychologists are measuring? Can you imagine one of these IQ 170 individuals surviving when shit hits the fan? Can you imagine one of these individuals surviving without the structure of modern society?

    Absolutely.

    If an IQ test reflects to a significant degree problem solving ability my bet is with the 170 IQ guy over the guy with the 110 IQ. This is particularly true the more challenging the environmental pressures that are faced.

    IQ is not the only thing that matters, but it is pretty darn important for sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Absolutely.

    If an IQ test reflects to a significant degree problem solving ability my bet is with the 170 IQ guy over the guy with the 110 IQ. This is particularly true the more challenging the environmental pressures that are faced."

    Just saying things like this is useless. In a shit hits the fan scenario, say, the power grid collapses and its every man for themselves, who will be running things? Say an asteroid hits the earth, when might will need to make right, and these 170 IQs don't have the protection of modern society, what would happen?

    "IQ is not the only thing that matters, but it is pretty darn important for sure."

    It really isn't. There is also a thing called "Dysrationalia". Look up Keith Stanovich's work.
  49. @RaceRealist88
    "Anthropocentric bias is “humans are totally superior” and not “humans are superior where they are superior”. You even know what is it."

    1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
    2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.


    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anthropocentrism

    Definition 2 is apt.

    "I don’t put words In your mouth even because you even know why people usually use quotas. Indefinite is not unfactual but what I already said, intelligence concepts are incomplete."

    They're much more than that. I explained why I used scarequotes; there is no accepted definition. Talk to 50 psychologists and get 50 different answers.

    "Only in your own self-unknown intellectual limitations."

    So explain the theory of individual intelligence differences if you know it.

    "My comments only have structures. This make them minimally understand. The few things you wrote I understand very well and most of them are grossly wrong. Reasoning is want you wasn’t born with and ALL THE TIME you show why you are THAT dumbest in the room."

    No they don't. It's just incoherent rambling. Word salad. I know logic, do you?

    If psychologists don't have a set definition for intelligence, then they don't know what they are studying.

    Let's get to the heart of the matter and let's see if you can follow this: Psychologists state that general intelligence is physiological. Psychologists rank this supposed physiological trait. To the best of my knowledge, physiologists don't study general intelligence (I have an in-use textbook by Kenneth Saladin called Anatomy & Physiology: The Unity of Form and Function and not once is general intelligence---or intelligence itself---mentioned. So if general intelligence is indeed physiological, then why don't physiologists study it? And even if they did, they would not rank it in an order as psychologists do.

    Screw all the other stuff. Just address that above paragraph. I don't have time to waste on your ramblings.

    They will probably study it some day when it can be more precisely measured. Now it is just an abstraction–IQ tests.

    In the future, the number of synapses per square centimeter of the cerebral cortex might become a good physiologic approximation for intelligence.

    Brain volume as measured by imaging studies such as MRI is also emerging as a pretty useful tool to estimate intelligence. Smarter people have bigger brains, and people with unique talents such as musicians have bigger brains in distinct locations within the brain. In other words, we are finding physiologic correlates for intelligence.

    Cerebral cortex convolutions per square centimeter of brain matter might also become useful.

    Bottom line: Just because it cannot be measured today does not mean that we will never be able to measure it.

    It is just a matter of time provided the inquiry can continue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "They will probably study it some day when it can be more precisely measured. Now it is just an abstraction–IQ tests."

    And if they did then they wouldn't rank it. It'd be just another physiological process for physiologists to study.

    "In the future, the number of synapses per square centimeter of the cerebral cortex might become a good physiologic approximation for intelligence."

    Any references?

    "Brain volume as measured by imaging studies such as MRI is also emerging as a pretty useful tool to estimate intelligence. Smarter people have bigger brains"

    No. Let's say the correlation is .5 between brain size and IQ. Then 75 percent of the relationship still needs explaining. Microcephalics have IQs in the normal range. So if people with erectus sized brains can have the capacity for an IQ in the normal range, then IQ must have increased for another reason.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/brain-size-increased-for-expertise-capacity-not-iq/

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

    "people with unique talents such as musicians have bigger brains in distinct locations within the brain. In other words, we are finding physiologic correlates for intelligence"

    This is evidence for my case above. People who play instruments have changes in their brain in certain places. Experts have larger parts of the brain than non-experts, and this is driven by the plasticity of the brain due to the playing of the instruments. That the brain is plastic and shows changes in certain regions does not lend credence to a true physiological relationship with the brain and intelligence/IQ. It does, however, lend credence to the argument that brain size increased for expertise capacity, not IQ.

    By the way, people with half their brain missing have IQs in the normal range.

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

    If brain size is important for IQ, bow can people with chunks of their brain literally missing have IQs in the normal range?

    "Cerebral cortex convolutions per square centimeter of brain matter might also become useful.

    Bottom line: Just because it cannot be measured today does not mean that we will never be able to measure it.

    It is just a matter of time provided the inquiry can continue."

    http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/283/235/7e3.jpg

    Again, if physiologists did study it it wouldn't be put in a rank order, I repeat it because it must be stressed. That's something psychologists do, not physiologists. Just because the brain uses more glucose in one part of the brain or shows plasticity due to mastering certain tasks does not mean that there is a physiological basis for g, nor does it mean that physiologists would have a rank order for it.
  50. I’m somewhat interested in this sort of thing, however, getting your hands on this “public data” to do your own analysis is difficult. This is a pet peeve of mine, that public research data is locked away (typically behind a paywall) from the general public with only institutions allowed to access it.

    On the plus side, this is mostly dry lab stuff. Someone else got the data and all you have to do is crunch the numbers. Which brings up another bit. Some of the above comments assumed that you needed a larger population to get the high IQ sample size, but this data appears to be cumulative. You have a piece of data that says what the IQ is and some corresponding data that gives the genome. There is no reason (given) to assume that this occurred within any sort of time frame either for the individual or within the sample.

    Recently, I was scanning through the eidetic memory wiki. Maybe eidetic memory would be a good subject for a GWA study. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidetic_memory

    I haven’t looked at genetics since my college days, so I found the following article to be helpful:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study

    Read More
  51. @PaulD
    "with heritability increasing from 40% in childhood to 80% in later adulthood"

    Eh, what does THAT mean?
    Children tend not to reproduce so how can they have a heritability of 40%. How can this increase as they become adults?
    This is not well phrased, nor explained In fact, it is not written, dare I say it, intelligently!

    Heritability (in broad sense, upper case H) from twin studies:

    H^2=2*(r_mz – r_dz) (Falconer’s formula)

    where r_mz and r_dz are correlation of a given trait between MZ twins and DZ twins, respectively.

    The Falconer’s formula can be derived mathematically fairly easily, though strangely I did not find it done correctly in Wiki and other places. Many people who use it do not know how it is derived.

    The effect that the heritability H^2 of IQ increases from childhood to adulthood was observed in meta studies by Wilson, so it sometime is called the Wilson effect.

    There is no good explanation of the Wilson effect because it is very counterintuitive. The one given by the IQists require suspense of logic. It is very possible that the effect is spurious resulting from high uncertainty of IQ tests administered to children.

    The Wilson effect is loved by all kind of racists like Charles Murray and other recipients of monies from Pionier Fund like the creatures associated with the Ulster Institute for a very simple reason: If H^2 increases with age any environmental interventions to improve IQ of disadvantaged children like the Head Start is pointless.

    Read More
  52. @Santoculto
    ''“Anthropocentric bias is “humans are totally superior” and not “humans are superior where they are superior”. You even know what is it.”

    1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
    2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.''

    Jeezis, your brain is in decomposition.

    ...central element of the universe ==== [totally superior]

    Very dumb, incapable to understand easiest things but you think it's capable to understand the very difficult ones... a poor soul.

    They’re much more than that. I explained why I used scarequotes; there is no accepted definition. Talk to 50 psychologists and get 50 different answers.
     
    Your entire try to resist in this already won-debate must be interpreted as a sign of courage but not, it's just pathetic and extremely irritating.

    I will not repeat myself, over over again.

    No they don’t. It’s just incoherent rambling. Word salad. I know logic, do you?
     
    Dear, even if it's true, so you would not be capable to read my comments to start, it's just your HUGE intellectual dishonesty + HUGE stupidity that abort any hope about your reasoning skills. Lunatic!!!

    And, what logic have to do with it*

    In the absolutely perfect human world, you must used your muscles in manual tasks and not self-deceiving in some obscure ivory tower to believe you're capable to understand basic science. A typical NON-SCIENTIST academic.

    So explain the theory of individual intelligence differences if you know it.
     
    No, i already explain above partially my hypothesis.

    If psychologists don’t have a set definition for intelligence, then they don’t know what they are studying.
     
    Now you need to say that psychology is a pseudo-science....

    You're in contradictions AGAIN or it's just a impression**

    I don’t have time to waste on your ramblings.
     
    In his core you know i'm infinitely smarter than you and only because i'm infinitely more self-aware than you, supposedly the simplest things...

    Yes, supposedly you don't have time to waste with me, but it was you who started to waste your time isn't*

    I already told you, when i want laugh i watch series, namely some 70's mexican ones. If you want preserve your pseudo-pride to be a pseudo-scientist academic, but pretend to be, just avoid contact me to say the SAME NONSENSE VAGUENESS.

    You're completely idiotic, extremely stupid, i'm that guy who entertain PP blog because i'm a good person and i have mercy with stupid people, it's just a question of time for people really know who i'm, if they really want.. and in the end, i don't care. Subconsciously you know who i'm and this make you lost your poor and little head, because you're a sub-human.

    I hope you finally learn the lesson and stop to this masochism even you deserve even worst than just someone angelical as me talking inconvenient truths to you about yourself.

    “And, what logic have to do with it*”

    Lol

    “No, i already explain above partially my hypothesis.”

    Maybe I missed it. Explain to me the mechanisms of individual intelligence differences.

    “If psychologists don’t have a set definition for intelligence, then they don’t know what they are studying.”

    Now you need to say that psychology is a pseudo-science….”

    Lol. You didn’t reply to my statement again. Try again.

    The rest of your comment was literally dumb attacks. Have fun wasting your time spewing garbage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Dumb attacks for dumb opponent and you are not just dumb but that dumb, the dumbest here.

    Write in wrong way is not lack of logic.

    Write barely well as you and jump in every retarded pseudo science that massage your super dumb ego = lack of real logic.

    I reply in three comments above. It's not a reply idiot, it's just your extremely obvious pseudo argumentation.

    You're incapable to refute me. I already explain but I think you have severe memory deficits, what most self contradictory people have, or no have, memory. Everything on you in intellectual departments is severely delayed. Extremely weak thinker. Sorry. At least you are "successful" aa personal trainer and pseudo scientist. It's something. You cheat other people fundamentally because you show interests on intellectual issues and know how write in academic format. The rest....

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha boringly stupid.

    Wait

    For you try to paint yourself as super academic thinker is a logic thing to do. In this opportunistic and convenient way you're very very logic but at irrational levels. Rationality is undoubtedly related with objective morality, you despise.

  53. @lavoisier
    Absolutely.

    If an IQ test reflects to a significant degree problem solving ability my bet is with the 170 IQ guy over the guy with the 110 IQ. This is particularly true the more challenging the environmental pressures that are faced.

    IQ is not the only thing that matters, but it is pretty darn important for sure.

    “Absolutely.

    If an IQ test reflects to a significant degree problem solving ability my bet is with the 170 IQ guy over the guy with the 110 IQ. This is particularly true the more challenging the environmental pressures that are faced.”

    Just saying things like this is useless. In a shit hits the fan scenario, say, the power grid collapses and its every man for themselves, who will be running things? Say an asteroid hits the earth, when might will need to make right, and these 170 IQs don’t have the protection of modern society, what would happen?

    “IQ is not the only thing that matters, but it is pretty darn important for sure.”

    It really isn’t. There is also a thing called “Dysrationalia”. Look up Keith Stanovich’s work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @James Thompson
    Yes, look up Stanovich. https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-tricky-question-of-rationality
    , @Santoculto

    Just saying things like this is useless. In a shit hits the fan scenario, say, the power grid collapses and its every man for themselves, who will be running things? Say an asteroid hits the earth, when might will need to make right, and these 170 IQs don’t have the protection of modern society, what would happen?
     
    'cause you ''have'' a IQ 110, isn't R&R*

    In a scenario disaster at least myself, never will try to search for your help, hihihihihihihihihi if you already are a disaster ITself, ;)


    It really isn’t. There is also a thing called “Dysrationalia”. Look up Keith Stanovich’s work.
     
    http://www.bellacor.com/media.bellacor.com/images/1500/79601102B-055.jpg

    Such a personal gHido.

  54. @lavoisier
    They will probably study it some day when it can be more precisely measured. Now it is just an abstraction--IQ tests.

    In the future, the number of synapses per square centimeter of the cerebral cortex might become a good physiologic approximation for intelligence.

    Brain volume as measured by imaging studies such as MRI is also emerging as a pretty useful tool to estimate intelligence. Smarter people have bigger brains, and people with unique talents such as musicians have bigger brains in distinct locations within the brain. In other words, we are finding physiologic correlates for intelligence.

    Cerebral cortex convolutions per square centimeter of brain matter might also become useful.

    Bottom line: Just because it cannot be measured today does not mean that we will never be able to measure it.

    It is just a matter of time provided the inquiry can continue.

    “They will probably study it some day when it can be more precisely measured. Now it is just an abstraction–IQ tests.”

    And if they did then they wouldn’t rank it. It’d be just another physiological process for physiologists to study.

    “In the future, the number of synapses per square centimeter of the cerebral cortex might become a good physiologic approximation for intelligence.”

    Any references?

    “Brain volume as measured by imaging studies such as MRI is also emerging as a pretty useful tool to estimate intelligence. Smarter people have bigger brains”

    No. Let’s say the correlation is .5 between brain size and IQ. Then 75 percent of the relationship still needs explaining. Microcephalics have IQs in the normal range. So if people with erectus sized brains can have the capacity for an IQ in the normal range, then IQ must have increased for another reason.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/14/brain-size-increased-for-expertise-capacity-not-iq/

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

    “people with unique talents such as musicians have bigger brains in distinct locations within the brain. In other words, we are finding physiologic correlates for intelligence”

    This is evidence for my case above. People who play instruments have changes in their brain in certain places. Experts have larger parts of the brain than non-experts, and this is driven by the plasticity of the brain due to the playing of the instruments. That the brain is plastic and shows changes in certain regions does not lend credence to a true physiological relationship with the brain and intelligence/IQ. It does, however, lend credence to the argument that brain size increased for expertise capacity, not IQ.

    By the way, people with half their brain missing have IQs in the normal range.

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

    If brain size is important for IQ, bow can people with chunks of their brain literally missing have IQs in the normal range?

    “Cerebral cortex convolutions per square centimeter of brain matter might also become useful.

    Bottom line: Just because it cannot be measured today does not mean that we will never be able to measure it.

    It is just a matter of time provided the inquiry can continue.”

    http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/283/235/7e3.jpg

    Again, if physiologists did study it it wouldn’t be put in a rank order, I repeat it because it must be stressed. That’s something psychologists do, not physiologists. Just because the brain uses more glucose in one part of the brain or shows plasticity due to mastering certain tasks does not mean that there is a physiological basis for g, nor does it mean that physiologists would have a rank order for it.

    Read More
  55. @Logan
    Darn unlikely that you've known a not insignificant number of people with IQs above 175.

    Such people are about 1/1M. So roughly 330 of them in the USA. Except there are probably a few more because it's likely a goodly percentage of them born elsewhere immigrate here.

    So, statistically speaking, if you live in a city of 1M, there's one person of this IQ living there. But even this is unlikely because they tend to cluster and it's probable the majority of such people in the US are found in the obvious areas: the Northeast and Silicon Valley.

    Now it is entirely possible you've known a good many people who claim an IQ above 175. :)

    Without breaching good manners/privacy I can cite three people I have broken bread with that I met via Steve Sailer’s egroup one of whom, given his facinating career and friendships could be believed when he wrote that the nuns had had his IQ measured at 183. Then there is our host with his published 214 that leaves a fair margin for error and another mathematically inclined chap who used the expression Six Sigmas so as to clearly include himself and, anyway was one of the very rare 1600 SAT scorers before the SAT was dumbed down…! Then there is my favourite sister-in-law whose mother owned a prep school and told me it was so irritatìng to find her (dyslexic) daughter having trouble with spelling that she had her IQ tested and it was 173 (probably like her amateur chess champion father) and that a few years later her secondary school had it at 175. She’s the sort of person who – bypassing the dyslexic problem – reads at twice the speed of most fast readers and tells you “whodunnit” in an Agatha Christie novel two thirds of the way through. My earliest is a school friend who became a particle physicist at Cambridge before becoming a leading intellectual property lawyer appearing in the highest courts. I happened to see school records recording, inter alia, his IQ score as 183. True there was another one much lower, barely Ivy League President level but, as he himself joked decades later he must have been having a bad day. As I noted in another comment the demographics have been changing radically since Cyril Burt could find a big >170 bump in English boys. The clever woman who once married the vicar and had eight children by her early 30s now gets a second degree and has one autistic child at 33 after which she stops or has just one more. A few years ago I met an Englishwoman with four daughters of whom three were at Oxbridge. Apparently she had seven uncles who were all Oxbridge graduates. No more…. even acknowledging that getting ito Oxbridge was less competitive more than 50 years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @K
    What was the standard deviation on the IQ tests they took, was it 15 ,16 or 24? I ask this because a 170 IQ score on an sd 24 test would be equal to a score of around 156 IQ (roughly) on an sd 15 test. And as far as i know, sd 15 tests (like wechsler) are generally considered more 'accurate' in measuring IQ than sd 24 tests.
    , @Logan
    None of which changes the fact that 175+ IQs are roughly one in a million. I'll leave it to you to calculate the odds that you would randomly know multiple people in this category.

    Also, as K says, the particular IQ test given is critical.

    I have taken about half a dozen such tests. One came back at 169, wildly out of scale with the others, because it was a dumb type of IQ test and the results weren't valid. So I don't run around telling people my IQ is 169.

    (In fact, I don't run around talking about my IQ at all!)
  56. @Sean
    What do you make of the Scottish study that found fewer mutations were important?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4625342/DNA-mutations-poor-health-make-stupid.html


    Conversely, is there any IQ relevance for Braess's paradox and Adilson Motter's suggestion that gene networks could be made more efficient by knocking out part of them.

    You raise one question and overlook the more fundamental question embedded in it. IF mutations diminish genetic fitness, …?

    :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    I was wondering about networks. http://www.molecularecologist.com/2015/02/bigger-on-the-inside/
  57. @Wizard of Oz
    Without breaching good manners/privacy I can cite three people I have broken bread with that I met via Steve Sailer's egroup one of whom, given his facinating career and friendships could be believed when he wrote that the nuns had had his IQ measured at 183. Then there is our host with his published 214 that leaves a fair margin for error and another mathematically inclined chap who used the expression Six Sigmas so as to clearly include himself and, anyway was one of the very rare 1600 SAT scorers before the SAT was dumbed down...! Then there is my favourite sister-in-law whose mother owned a prep school and told me it was so irritatìng to find her (dyslexic) daughter having trouble with spelling that she had her IQ tested and it was 173 (probably like her amateur chess champion father) and that a few years later her secondary school had it at 175. She's the sort of person who - bypassing the dyslexic problem - reads at twice the speed of most fast readers and tells you "whodunnit" in an Agatha Christie novel two thirds of the way through. My earliest is a school friend who became a particle physicist at Cambridge before becoming a leading intellectual property lawyer appearing in the highest courts. I happened to see school records recording, inter alia, his IQ score as 183. True there was another one much lower, barely Ivy League President level but, as he himself joked decades later he must have been having a bad day. As I noted in another comment the demographics have been changing radically since Cyril Burt could find a big >170 bump in English boys. The clever woman who once married the vicar and had eight children by her early 30s now gets a second degree and has one autistic child at 33 after which she stops or has just one more. A few years ago I met an Englishwoman with four daughters of whom three were at Oxbridge. Apparently she had seven uncles who were all Oxbridge graduates. No more.... even acknowledging that getting ito Oxbridge was less competitive more than 50 years ago.

    What was the standard deviation on the IQ tests they took, was it 15 ,16 or 24? I ask this because a 170 IQ score on an sd 24 test would be equal to a score of around 156 IQ (roughly) on an sd 15 test. And as far as i know, sd 15 tests (like wechsler) are generally considered more ‘accurate’ in measuring IQ than sd 24 tests.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I have vaguely wondered about the sd myself. The only ones I would suspect of being other than 15 would be those for my sister in law and that for no other reason than the possibility that Cattell IQ tests with their 24 sd were at least possibilities in England where they took place. Her children and >11 year old grandchildren have all won scholarships but the 175 wouldn't have to be 5 sigmas for that.
    I'm not sure I understand how the sd could have a bearing on accuracy of IQ messurement.....
  58. @RaceRealist88
    "And, what logic have to do with it*"

    Lol

    "No, i already explain above partially my hypothesis."

    Maybe I missed it. Explain to me the mechanisms of individual intelligence differences.

    "If psychologists don’t have a set definition for intelligence, then they don’t know what they are studying."

    Now you need to say that psychology is a pseudo-science…."
     
    Lol. You didn't reply to my statement again. Try again.

    The rest of your comment was literally dumb attacks. Have fun wasting your time spewing garbage.

    Dumb attacks for dumb opponent and you are not just dumb but that dumb, the dumbest here.

    Write in wrong way is not lack of logic.

    Write barely well as you and jump in every retarded pseudo science that massage your super dumb ego = lack of real logic.

    I reply in three comments above. It’s not a reply idiot, it’s just your extremely obvious pseudo argumentation.

    You’re incapable to refute me. I already explain but I think you have severe memory deficits, what most self contradictory people have, or no have, memory. Everything on you in intellectual departments is severely delayed. Extremely weak thinker. Sorry. At least you are “successful” aa personal trainer and pseudo scientist. It’s something. You cheat other people fundamentally because you show interests on intellectual issues and know how write in academic format. The rest….

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha boringly stupid.

    Wait

    For you try to paint yourself as super academic thinker is a logic thing to do. In this opportunistic and convenient way you’re very very logic but at irrational levels. Rationality is undoubtedly related with objective morality, you despise.

    Read More
  59. Is there a book of interviews with extremely high IQ folks? Something that might give some insight into their jobs, their daily lives, and so on. I think Parade magazine, a popular Sunday supplement in the States, did just that many years ago. And, of course, there are plenty of magazines, such as People, that do vignettes of otherwise ordinary people who’ve done something unusual or have something remarkable about them.

    Read More
  60. @RaceRealist88
    "Absolutely.

    If an IQ test reflects to a significant degree problem solving ability my bet is with the 170 IQ guy over the guy with the 110 IQ. This is particularly true the more challenging the environmental pressures that are faced."

    Just saying things like this is useless. In a shit hits the fan scenario, say, the power grid collapses and its every man for themselves, who will be running things? Say an asteroid hits the earth, when might will need to make right, and these 170 IQs don't have the protection of modern society, what would happen?

    "IQ is not the only thing that matters, but it is pretty darn important for sure."

    It really isn't. There is also a thing called "Dysrationalia". Look up Keith Stanovich's work.
    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Thanks for the link Dr. Thompson. I'll review it later.
    , @FKA Max
    I think it is also important to distinguish between ``selfish rationality'', which benefits chiefly an individual and potentially his immediate family and circle of relatives, friends, etc. (cronyism, nepotism, short-term planning/strategy) and ``utilitarian rationality'', which puts the well-being of an entire society/nation/civilization/humanity as its highest priority and goal (nobleesse oblige, benevolent/enlightened technocracy, long-term planning/strategy).

    Mr. Woodley in his talk on ``clever sillies'' touched upon this, when he stated that he is quite cynical about ``clever sillies'' and their personality type/motivations and refers to them as ``Machiavellian'': https://www.unz.com/jthompson/are-we-cleverer-than-the-ancients/#comment-1925418

    I would say ``clever sillies'' display mostly ``selfish rationality'' and rarely ``utilitarian rationality'', i.e., they are lacking in wisdom and foresight, in my opinion:

    One of the highest expressions of true ``utilitarian rationality'', in my opinion, is `` disadvantageous inequity aversion'', which at first glance might appear as extremely irrational behavior to in engage in, but, in my opinion, in actuality is highly rational and intelligent behavior when applied/extrapolated on/to a societal or even civilizational level and frame of reference:

    You are displaying “inequity aversion,” which is a healthy, noble, and self-sacrificing instinct to have.

    Personally, I don’t call them “IQ Fascists,” but simply “Social Darwinists.” Their selfish behavior as you will read below is self-defeating, though. But too much humanitarianism is not healthy and recommended either.
    [...]
    Fehr and Schmidt showed that disadvantageous inequity aversion manifests itself in humans as the “willingness to sacrifice potential gain to block another individual from receiving a superior reward”. They argue that this apparently self-destructive response is essential in creating an environment in which bilateral bargaining can thrive. Without inequity aversion’s rejection of injustice, stable cooperation would be harder to maintain (for instance, there would be more opportunities for successful free riders).
    [...]
    Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. – http://www.unz.com/gnxp/cheaters-prosper-bayesians-dont/#comment-1516616
     

    - https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1805469

    on the topic of intelligence versus wisdom, where my argument was, that intelligence and wisdom always go hand in hand, but that there are plenty of very intelligent people, who lack wisdom, or can be outright evil, e.g. psychopaths.
     

    - https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1817068
  61. @RaceRealist88
    "Absolutely.

    If an IQ test reflects to a significant degree problem solving ability my bet is with the 170 IQ guy over the guy with the 110 IQ. This is particularly true the more challenging the environmental pressures that are faced."

    Just saying things like this is useless. In a shit hits the fan scenario, say, the power grid collapses and its every man for themselves, who will be running things? Say an asteroid hits the earth, when might will need to make right, and these 170 IQs don't have the protection of modern society, what would happen?

    "IQ is not the only thing that matters, but it is pretty darn important for sure."

    It really isn't. There is also a thing called "Dysrationalia". Look up Keith Stanovich's work.

    Just saying things like this is useless. In a shit hits the fan scenario, say, the power grid collapses and its every man for themselves, who will be running things? Say an asteroid hits the earth, when might will need to make right, and these 170 IQs don’t have the protection of modern society, what would happen?

    ’cause you ”have” a IQ 110, isn’t R&R*

    In a scenario disaster at least myself, never will try to search for your help, hihihihihihihihihi if you already are a disaster ITself, ;)

    It really isn’t. There is also a thing called “Dysrationalia”. Look up Keith Stanovich’s work.

    http://www.bellacor.com/media.bellacor.com/images/1500/79601102B-055.jpg

    Such a personal gHido.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    How is it possible to write 100 words and yet say absolutely nothing? It's incredible.
  62. @RaceRealist88
    "So I came up with my own: [Human] intelligence is the sum total of mental attributes that contributes to our survival, in both the near and the long term, and to achieving a standard of living beyond mere survival."

    Is this what psychologists are measuring? Can you imagine one of these IQ 170 individuals surviving when shit hits the fan? Can you imagine one of these individuals surviving without the structure of modern society?

    This isn’t profound but a lot of people would be dead without the structure of modern society, regardless of IQ. Stephen M. Stirling explores this in his Emberverse series of novels, most especially the first one, _Dies the Fire_, when technology first stops working. Steven King explored this theme in his novel _The Stand_.

    The attributes most conducive to survival differ depending on the environment & circumstances. Yes, an individual with an IQ of 170 in the developed world is probably “book smart,” and if we dropped him in the middle of the Amazon he’d probably be dead within a few days. But if we extracted a hunter-gatherer from the middle of the Amazon and dropped him in the middle of Manhattan in the winter, he might also be dead in a matter of days or even hours.

    As an aside, at the age of 58, if there is going to be an apocalypse comparable to either _The Postman_ or _The Road_, I don’t want to survive it. I don’t want to live in a world where at the end of the day I can’t take a hot shower and have a bourbon-and-(diet)coke in the evening. (And pizza, gotta have pizza).

    You seem to have some hostility to the general topic of IQ. I can’t help but wonder why that is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "You seem to have some hostility to the general topic of IQ. I can’t help but wonder why that is."

    No hostility at all. You're assuming my motivation too. That's fallacious.

    Without the confines of modern society, in my opinion, most high IQ people will be left in the dust. My point is, the "book smart" person wouldn't have the "survival smarts" needed when shit hits the fan.

    Look at those prepper shows. They don't look too intelligent to me, at least in the upper levels of what we're talking about here.
  63. @Jeff77450
    This isn't profound but a lot of people would be dead without the structure of modern society, regardless of IQ. Stephen M. Stirling explores this in his Emberverse series of novels, most especially the first one, _Dies the Fire_, when technology first stops working. Steven King explored this theme in his novel _The Stand_.

    The attributes most conducive to survival differ depending on the environment & circumstances. Yes, an individual with an IQ of 170 in the developed world is probably "book smart," and if we dropped him in the middle of the Amazon he'd probably be dead within a few days. But if we extracted a hunter-gatherer from the middle of the Amazon and dropped him in the middle of Manhattan in the winter, he might also be dead in a matter of days or even hours.

    As an aside, at the age of 58, if there is going to be an apocalypse comparable to either _The Postman_ or _The Road_, I don't want to survive it. I don't want to live in a world where at the end of the day I can't take a hot shower and have a bourbon-and-(diet)coke in the evening. (And pizza, gotta have pizza).

    You seem to have some hostility to the general topic of IQ. I can't help but wonder why that is.

    “You seem to have some hostility to the general topic of IQ. I can’t help but wonder why that is.”

    No hostility at all. You’re assuming my motivation too. That’s fallacious.

    Without the confines of modern society, in my opinion, most high IQ people will be left in the dust. My point is, the “book smart” person wouldn’t have the “survival smarts” needed when shit hits the fan.

    Look at those prepper shows. They don’t look too intelligent to me, at least in the upper levels of what we’re talking about here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    They don’t look too intelligent to me
     
    So... it's very likely they will survive, =)))

    In the highest mountain of Basilicata, wise personal guido sentence: ''they don't look too DAMN intelligent two-mee''
    , @Pat Boyle
    Look at those prepper shows. They don’t look too intelligent to me

    Try to catch a prepper TV show of about two years ago. The first scene shows the father teaching his son how to shoot. Then the camera pans away and when it comes back we see that the dad has managed to shoot his thumb off.

    LMAO
  64. @Santoculto

    Just saying things like this is useless. In a shit hits the fan scenario, say, the power grid collapses and its every man for themselves, who will be running things? Say an asteroid hits the earth, when might will need to make right, and these 170 IQs don’t have the protection of modern society, what would happen?
     
    'cause you ''have'' a IQ 110, isn't R&R*

    In a scenario disaster at least myself, never will try to search for your help, hihihihihihihihihi if you already are a disaster ITself, ;)


    It really isn’t. There is also a thing called “Dysrationalia”. Look up Keith Stanovich’s work.
     
    http://www.bellacor.com/media.bellacor.com/images/1500/79601102B-055.jpg

    Such a personal gHido.

    How is it possible to write 100 words and yet say absolutely nothing? It’s incredible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    When i'm talking about you is always about NOTHING, what you're. You have a black hole in your misery-head.
  65. @James Thompson
    Yes, look up Stanovich. https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-tricky-question-of-rationality

    Thanks for the link Dr. Thompson. I’ll review it later.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    But UNDERSTAND it'ss something our amazing personal guido here can not guarantee...
  66. @K
    What was the standard deviation on the IQ tests they took, was it 15 ,16 or 24? I ask this because a 170 IQ score on an sd 24 test would be equal to a score of around 156 IQ (roughly) on an sd 15 test. And as far as i know, sd 15 tests (like wechsler) are generally considered more 'accurate' in measuring IQ than sd 24 tests.

    I have vaguely wondered about the sd myself. The only ones I would suspect of being other than 15 would be those for my sister in law and that for no other reason than the possibility that Cattell IQ tests with their 24 sd were at least possibilities in England where they took place. Her children and >11 year old grandchildren have all won scholarships but the 175 wouldn’t have to be 5 sigmas for that.
    I’m not sure I understand how the sd could have a bearing on accuracy of IQ messurement…..

    Read More
  67. @RaceRealist88
    How is it possible to write 100 words and yet say absolutely nothing? It's incredible.

    When i’m talking about you is always about NOTHING, what you’re. You have a black hole in your misery-head.

    Read More
  68. @RaceRealist88
    Thanks for the link Dr. Thompson. I'll review it later.

    But UNDERSTAND it’ss something our amazing personal guido here can not guarantee…

    Read More
  69. @RaceRealist88
    "You seem to have some hostility to the general topic of IQ. I can’t help but wonder why that is."

    No hostility at all. You're assuming my motivation too. That's fallacious.

    Without the confines of modern society, in my opinion, most high IQ people will be left in the dust. My point is, the "book smart" person wouldn't have the "survival smarts" needed when shit hits the fan.

    Look at those prepper shows. They don't look too intelligent to me, at least in the upper levels of what we're talking about here.

    They don’t look too intelligent to me

    So… it’s very likely they will survive, =)))

    In the highest mountain of Basilicata, wise personal guido sentence: ”they don’t look too DAMN intelligent two-mee”

    Read More
  70. @James Thompson
    Yes, look up Stanovich. https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-tricky-question-of-rationality

    I think it is also important to distinguish between “selfish rationality”, which benefits chiefly an individual and potentially his immediate family and circle of relatives, friends, etc. (cronyism, nepotism, short-term planning/strategy) and “utilitarian rationality”, which puts the well-being of an entire society/nation/civilization/humanity as its highest priority and goal (nobleesse oblige, benevolent/enlightened technocracy, long-term planning/strategy).

    Mr. Woodley in his talk on “clever sillies” touched upon this, when he stated that he is quite cynical about “clever sillies” and their personality type/motivations and refers to them as “Machiavellian”: https://www.unz.com/jthompson/are-we-cleverer-than-the-ancients/#comment-1925418

    I would say “clever sillies” display mostly “selfish rationality” and rarely “utilitarian rationality”, i.e., they are lacking in wisdom and foresight, in my opinion:

    One of the highest expressions of true “utilitarian rationality”, in my opinion, is “ disadvantageous inequity aversion”, which at first glance might appear as extremely irrational behavior to in engage in, but, in my opinion, in actuality is highly rational and intelligent behavior when applied/extrapolated on/to a societal or even civilizational level and frame of reference:

    You are displaying “inequity aversion,” which is a healthy, noble, and self-sacrificing instinct to have.

    Personally, I don’t call them “IQ Fascists,” but simply “Social Darwinists.” Their selfish behavior as you will read below is self-defeating, though. But too much humanitarianism is not healthy and recommended either.
    [...]
    Fehr and Schmidt showed that disadvantageous inequity aversion manifests itself in humans as the “willingness to sacrifice potential gain to block another individual from receiving a superior reward”. They argue that this apparently self-destructive response is essential in creating an environment in which bilateral bargaining can thrive. Without inequity aversion’s rejection of injustice, stable cooperation would be harder to maintain (for instance, there would be more opportunities for successful free riders).
    [...]
    Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation.http://www.unz.com/gnxp/cheaters-prosper-bayesians-dont/#comment-1516616

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1805469

    on the topic of intelligence versus wisdom, where my argument was, that intelligence and wisdom always go hand in hand, but that there are plenty of very intelligent people, who lack wisdom, or can be outright evil, e.g. psychopaths.

    https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1817068

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Psychologists say psychopathy is based on huge asymmetry between cognitive and affective empathy, they are perfectly capable to be cognitively empathetic but not in affective way. I think wise people in behavioral aspects must be both cognitively and affectively empathetic, in highest levels. This tend to resemble psychopathy because its lack on affective empathy increase its cognitive empathy while wise people seems may have both not just in normal range but also in highest ranges. So even psychopaths and wise people tend to be opposite in several traits they also share some significant similar features.

    Other huge aspect can be found in psychological aspect of both. Psychopaths no have intrinsic motivations, I mean, do or persecute certain intellectual goal just by the joy to do it for yourself. Or maybe they have that intrinsic motivation but directed to harm, hurt other people, sadistic motivation.

    Both are outsiders are understand easily social and individual fails but the first use them for their own selfish advantage. First is a parasite specially if they were high functioning psychopaths. The second is a mutualistic, a evolution of parasitism, both a very intelligent evolutionary strategy but the late evidently is even better. Or not, just speculating.
  71. @Jingo Starr
    You raise one question and overlook the more fundamental question embedded in it. IF mutations diminish genetic fitness, ...?

    :)
    Read More
  72. Remember for our lords here that genius without creativity is not genius in the same study about “genius genes” without “creativity genes” is not a study about genius capisce?? ;) and I still remember my debate with Res when he advocate that mister Thompson and the 7 hbds are not IQistics… Such a huge dishonesty by him!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Such a huge dishonesty by him!!
     
    Specific quotes (preferably with references to my actual words) of what I said that you consider dishonest, please. Along with a definition of "IQist."

    Worth mentioning that the comment I am replying to has essentially zero content except for multiple ad hominems.
  73. @FKA Max
    I think it is also important to distinguish between ``selfish rationality'', which benefits chiefly an individual and potentially his immediate family and circle of relatives, friends, etc. (cronyism, nepotism, short-term planning/strategy) and ``utilitarian rationality'', which puts the well-being of an entire society/nation/civilization/humanity as its highest priority and goal (nobleesse oblige, benevolent/enlightened technocracy, long-term planning/strategy).

    Mr. Woodley in his talk on ``clever sillies'' touched upon this, when he stated that he is quite cynical about ``clever sillies'' and their personality type/motivations and refers to them as ``Machiavellian'': https://www.unz.com/jthompson/are-we-cleverer-than-the-ancients/#comment-1925418

    I would say ``clever sillies'' display mostly ``selfish rationality'' and rarely ``utilitarian rationality'', i.e., they are lacking in wisdom and foresight, in my opinion:

    One of the highest expressions of true ``utilitarian rationality'', in my opinion, is `` disadvantageous inequity aversion'', which at first glance might appear as extremely irrational behavior to in engage in, but, in my opinion, in actuality is highly rational and intelligent behavior when applied/extrapolated on/to a societal or even civilizational level and frame of reference:

    You are displaying “inequity aversion,” which is a healthy, noble, and self-sacrificing instinct to have.

    Personally, I don’t call them “IQ Fascists,” but simply “Social Darwinists.” Their selfish behavior as you will read below is self-defeating, though. But too much humanitarianism is not healthy and recommended either.
    [...]
    Fehr and Schmidt showed that disadvantageous inequity aversion manifests itself in humans as the “willingness to sacrifice potential gain to block another individual from receiving a superior reward”. They argue that this apparently self-destructive response is essential in creating an environment in which bilateral bargaining can thrive. Without inequity aversion’s rejection of injustice, stable cooperation would be harder to maintain (for instance, there would be more opportunities for successful free riders).
    [...]
    Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates. Selfish and traitorous strategies are self-limiting because such agents do not cooperate with agents sharing the same genes. Traitorous strategies fare even worse than selfish ones because traitors are exploited by ethnocentrics across group boundaries in the same manner as humanitarians are, via unreciprocated cooperation. – http://www.unz.com/gnxp/cheaters-prosper-bayesians-dont/#comment-1516616
     

    - https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1805469

    on the topic of intelligence versus wisdom, where my argument was, that intelligence and wisdom always go hand in hand, but that there are plenty of very intelligent people, who lack wisdom, or can be outright evil, e.g. psychopaths.
     

    - https://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-secret-in-your-eyes/#comment-1817068

    Psychologists say psychopathy is based on huge asymmetry between cognitive and affective empathy, they are perfectly capable to be cognitively empathetic but not in affective way. I think wise people in behavioral aspects must be both cognitively and affectively empathetic, in highest levels. This tend to resemble psychopathy because its lack on affective empathy increase its cognitive empathy while wise people seems may have both not just in normal range but also in highest ranges. So even psychopaths and wise people tend to be opposite in several traits they also share some significant similar features.

    Other huge aspect can be found in psychological aspect of both. Psychopaths no have intrinsic motivations, I mean, do or persecute certain intellectual goal just by the joy to do it for yourself. Or maybe they have that intrinsic motivation but directed to harm, hurt other people, sadistic motivation.

    Both are outsiders are understand easily social and individual fails but the first use them for their own selfish advantage. First is a parasite specially if they were high functioning psychopaths. The second is a mutualistic, a evolution of parasitism, both a very intelligent evolutionary strategy but the late evidently is even better. Or not, just speculating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FKA Max
    Typo in my above comment, one ``e'' too many: *noblesse oblige*

    Good speculation. Very similar to David Lykken's:

    1. Superficial charm and good intelligence.

    2. Poise, rationality, absence of neurotic anxiety.

    3. Lack of sense of personal responsibility.[...]

    While antisocial people do not have themselves "psyched out" very well, they are often good readers of other people, adept at exploitation. They excuse and rationalize their own behavior, putting the blame for their problems on other people.
    [...]
    Lykken (1982) offered an interesting theory that certain heroic types such as astronauts, mountain climbers, and world leaders might come from the same biological type as antisocial personalities. They are all characterized by fearlessness—a willingness to take on situations that would cause normal people excessive worry. This is not a bad thing; we need fearless people to explore new frontiers and take on risky challenges.
    [...]
    Lykken believes "the hero and the psychopath are twigs from the same branch."
     
    - http://www.intropsych.com/ch12_abnormal/antisocial_personality.html

    “Knowing others is intelligence;
    knowing yourself is true wisdom.
    Mastering others is strength;
    mastering yourself is true power.”
    - https://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1692056

    You might remember I put it this way a while back:

    I think one of the characteristics of true geniuses is that they are natural utilitarians and extremely good and talented at creating win-win, triple-win, etc. situations, i.e.,

    Creating order out of chaos, or creating peace out of war.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/freed/gigo-and-the-intelligence-of-countries-disordered-thoughts/#comment-1920573

    It seems that psychopaths are incapable to produce, create or even perceive of these types of win-win scenarios, no matter how high their intelligence quotient might be. They can only think in win-lose scenarios/outcomes, i.e., zero-sum games, etc., and if they realize that they cannot win in a certain situation, their goal becomes -- and they intentionally try to force -- a lose-lose outcome. An ``it's my way or the highway'' type of attitude and approach.

    Germany’s Jeopardy by Frank Salter
    Could the Immigrant Influx “End European Civilization”?
    http://socialtechnologies.com.au/germanys-jeopardy-could-the-immigrant-influx-end-european-civilization/

    Not only welfare declines but any services relying on contributions to public goods. That includes cooperation with police, charities, medical and military authorities.

    Foreign aid, which is international welfare, is even more fragile. Foreign aid is strongly and negatively correlated with donor countries’ ethnic diversity.[xiv]

    The irony could not be more cruel. By accepting large numbers of people of non-Western cultures, who are seeking to benefit from generous welfare, European countries not only risk losing domestic welfare for natives and immigrants alike, but reducing their foreign aid to immigrants’ homelands. It’s a lose-lose strategy.
    [...]
    Merkel is doubly cruel because she is stripping developing societies of their more educated and industrious people. The inevitable fall in European foreign aid will hurt poor countries around the world, caused by the stagnation of European economies and decline in social capital.
     
    For the record, I personally don't believe that Angela Merkel is a psychopath, but I am pretty sure Erdogan is:

    President Erdogan is no stranger to blackmailing the EU. He has previously used migrants as a ‘loaded gun’ with which to threaten European leaders. The message is clear: do what I say, or I’ll open the floodgates. This week, he’s been back to his old tricks – bashing the EU and making it clear that if membership talks failed, Turkey would open its borders and allow its three million refugees to stream into Europe. But what sparked this latest resurgence of fighting talk from Erdogan?

    The clue lies in the vote last week in Strasbourg, when 479 MEPs backed a decision to halt the process of Turkey’s EU accession.
     
    - https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/european-populism-rise-president-erdogan-can-now-blackmail-eu/
  74. @Wizard of Oz
    Without breaching good manners/privacy I can cite three people I have broken bread with that I met via Steve Sailer's egroup one of whom, given his facinating career and friendships could be believed when he wrote that the nuns had had his IQ measured at 183. Then there is our host with his published 214 that leaves a fair margin for error and another mathematically inclined chap who used the expression Six Sigmas so as to clearly include himself and, anyway was one of the very rare 1600 SAT scorers before the SAT was dumbed down...! Then there is my favourite sister-in-law whose mother owned a prep school and told me it was so irritatìng to find her (dyslexic) daughter having trouble with spelling that she had her IQ tested and it was 173 (probably like her amateur chess champion father) and that a few years later her secondary school had it at 175. She's the sort of person who - bypassing the dyslexic problem - reads at twice the speed of most fast readers and tells you "whodunnit" in an Agatha Christie novel two thirds of the way through. My earliest is a school friend who became a particle physicist at Cambridge before becoming a leading intellectual property lawyer appearing in the highest courts. I happened to see school records recording, inter alia, his IQ score as 183. True there was another one much lower, barely Ivy League President level but, as he himself joked decades later he must have been having a bad day. As I noted in another comment the demographics have been changing radically since Cyril Burt could find a big >170 bump in English boys. The clever woman who once married the vicar and had eight children by her early 30s now gets a second degree and has one autistic child at 33 after which she stops or has just one more. A few years ago I met an Englishwoman with four daughters of whom three were at Oxbridge. Apparently she had seven uncles who were all Oxbridge graduates. No more.... even acknowledging that getting ito Oxbridge was less competitive more than 50 years ago.

    None of which changes the fact that 175+ IQs are roughly one in a million. I’ll leave it to you to calculate the odds that you would randomly know multiple people in this category.

    Also, as K says, the particular IQ test given is critical.

    I have taken about half a dozen such tests. One came back at 169, wildly out of scale with the others, because it was a dumb type of IQ test and the results weren’t valid. So I don’t run around telling people my IQ is 169.

    (In fact, I don’t run around talking about my IQ at all!)

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I’ll leave it to you to calculate the odds that you would randomly know multiple people in this category.
     
    As if people's acquaintances are selected randomly. What are the odds that WoOz and I would share one of those acquaintances given that we live on different continents?

    I do find the study's case population summary: "cases consisting of 1238 individuals from the top 0.0003 (~170 mean IQ) of the population distribution of intelligence" not very useful. I can't tell what kind of selection (if any) was used to choose the cases from the overall TIP study population. The mismatch between top 0.0003 (unless there is a missing "%") and IQ 170 has been noted above. They do say "mean" (i.e. that is not the threshold, though that far out in the tail a random sample from a normal curve should have a mean pretty close to the threshold).

    Looking at the paper (and supplemental material) I did not see any additional description of the case population IQs. Dr. Thompson, is there any chance of getting more info about this at your conference? Either a box plot or a distribution for the case population IQs (assuming it is anything like a random sample) would cast some light on the fat tail discussion. My understanding was the TIP study did additional IQ testing after the initial SAT/ACT screen. Can anyone confirm/deny that?

    P.S. Surprised not to see any mention of the BGI study here since it had a similar underlying idea. This paper has a much more rigorous set of samples though AFAICT.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Please switch on your 169. All sorts of things, includingas you mention, tests with different sds but the same average could affect the 1 in a million figure. Another is, as I thought I had pointed out, the lack of a single population to which Gauss's calculations can be applied meaningfully. Suppose you have a population with 10 million IQ 98 average people, 5 million IQ 107 average and 3 million with average 112 how many >175s would you expect for any given sd or set of sds?
    Also, as res has noted, one's acquaintances aren't acquired randomly. It would have made a difference if my father had died when I was sixteen forcing me to leave school and take over a bisiness of running local government parking areas for a pwrcentage of the takings. That imagined case is not entirely random. I observed to a travelling compsnion in the north of England who owned just that kind of business that I probably hadn't met anyone with an IQ in low 80s for a very long time and he replied that he met them all the time: his employees.
  75. @Van Doren
    1/3333 is IQ 151-152, not 170. 170 is one from 650,000. For that they would need to find every single person with IQ that high from 800 million people. That's EU and US together.

    Exactly what I said. In fact the only study I know of the hyper-IQ 170+ is by the Libertarian International, and they’ve been quietly recruiting them for decades. They’re hard to identify because of the limits of current tests so you have to do additional behavioral studies. They have people who have looked at genes but strictly in-house.

    The study here uses indirect indicators like the SAT and then in ways not intended. Nice try, but the PR is overblown…

    Read More
  76. @Santoculto
    Psychologists say psychopathy is based on huge asymmetry between cognitive and affective empathy, they are perfectly capable to be cognitively empathetic but not in affective way. I think wise people in behavioral aspects must be both cognitively and affectively empathetic, in highest levels. This tend to resemble psychopathy because its lack on affective empathy increase its cognitive empathy while wise people seems may have both not just in normal range but also in highest ranges. So even psychopaths and wise people tend to be opposite in several traits they also share some significant similar features.

    Other huge aspect can be found in psychological aspect of both. Psychopaths no have intrinsic motivations, I mean, do or persecute certain intellectual goal just by the joy to do it for yourself. Or maybe they have that intrinsic motivation but directed to harm, hurt other people, sadistic motivation.

    Both are outsiders are understand easily social and individual fails but the first use them for their own selfish advantage. First is a parasite specially if they were high functioning psychopaths. The second is a mutualistic, a evolution of parasitism, both a very intelligent evolutionary strategy but the late evidently is even better. Or not, just speculating.

    Typo in my above comment, one “e” too many: *noblesse oblige*

    Good speculation. Very similar to David Lykken’s:

    1. Superficial charm and good intelligence.

    2. Poise, rationality, absence of neurotic anxiety.

    3. Lack of sense of personal responsibility.[...]

    While antisocial people do not have themselves “psyched out” very well, they are often good readers of other people, adept at exploitation. They excuse and rationalize their own behavior, putting the blame for their problems on other people.
    [...]
    Lykken (1982) offered an interesting theory that certain heroic types such as astronauts, mountain climbers, and world leaders might come from the same biological type as antisocial personalities. They are all characterized by fearlessness—a willingness to take on situations that would cause normal people excessive worry. This is not a bad thing; we need fearless people to explore new frontiers and take on risky challenges.
    [...]
    Lykken believes “the hero and the psychopath are twigs from the same branch.”

    http://www.intropsych.com/ch12_abnormal/antisocial_personality.html

    “Knowing others is intelligence;
    knowing yourself is true wisdom.
    Mastering others is strength;
    mastering yourself is true power.”
    https://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1692056

    You might remember I put it this way a while back:

    I think one of the characteristics of true geniuses is that they are natural utilitarians and extremely good and talented at creating win-win, triple-win, etc. situations, i.e.,

    Creating order out of chaos, or creating peace out of war.

    https://www.unz.com/freed/gigo-and-the-intelligence-of-countries-disordered-thoughts/#comment-1920573

    It seems that psychopaths are incapable to produce, create or even perceive of these types of win-win scenarios, no matter how high their intelligence quotient might be. They can only think in win-lose scenarios/outcomes, i.e., zero-sum games, etc., and if they realize that they cannot win in a certain situation, their goal becomes — and they intentionally try to force — a lose-lose outcome. An “it’s my way or the highway” type of attitude and approach.

    Germany’s Jeopardy by Frank Salter
    Could the Immigrant Influx “End European Civilization”?

    http://socialtechnologies.com.au/germanys-jeopardy-could-the-immigrant-influx-end-european-civilization/

    Not only welfare declines but any services relying on contributions to public goods. That includes cooperation with police, charities, medical and military authorities.

    Foreign aid, which is international welfare, is even more fragile. Foreign aid is strongly and negatively correlated with donor countries’ ethnic diversity.[xiv]

    The irony could not be more cruel. By accepting large numbers of people of non-Western cultures, who are seeking to benefit from generous welfare, European countries not only risk losing domestic welfare for natives and immigrants alike, but reducing their foreign aid to immigrants’ homelands. It’s a lose-lose strategy.
    [...]
    Merkel is doubly cruel because she is stripping developing societies of their more educated and industrious people. The inevitable fall in European foreign aid will hurt poor countries around the world, caused by the stagnation of European economies and decline in social capital.

    For the record, I personally don’t believe that Angela Merkel is a psychopath, but I am pretty sure Erdogan is:

    President Erdogan is no stranger to blackmailing the EU. He has previously used migrants as a ‘loaded gun’ with which to threaten European leaders. The message is clear: do what I say, or I’ll open the floodgates. This week, he’s been back to his old tricks – bashing the EU and making it clear that if membership talks failed, Turkey would open its borders and allow its three million refugees to stream into Europe. But what sparked this latest resurgence of fighting talk from Erdogan?

    The clue lies in the vote last week in Strasbourg, when 479 MEPs backed a decision to halt the process of Turkey’s EU accession.

    https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/european-populism-rise-president-erdogan-can-now-blackmail-eu/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Why do you think Merdel is not psycho???

    I think she and most of politicians tend to be sociopaths, slight different vibe. Sociopaths ARE neurotypical psychopaths, they are naturally emotional but lack on benignity. Psychopaths are neuroatypical ones, just like neurotypical nerds and aspergers. Classical psychopaths no have genuine emotional responses, so they must need emulate neurotypicals. Sociopaths don't need emulate what they have on natural way. They are psychopaths who feel fear. Speculative too, for sure.

    I don't believe geniuses must be or are always benign as you said. Remember that wisdom and genius is not the same thing.

    On other hand I think sociopaths can be quite productive but...

  77. @FKA Max
    Typo in my above comment, one ``e'' too many: *noblesse oblige*

    Good speculation. Very similar to David Lykken's:

    1. Superficial charm and good intelligence.

    2. Poise, rationality, absence of neurotic anxiety.

    3. Lack of sense of personal responsibility.[...]

    While antisocial people do not have themselves "psyched out" very well, they are often good readers of other people, adept at exploitation. They excuse and rationalize their own behavior, putting the blame for their problems on other people.
    [...]
    Lykken (1982) offered an interesting theory that certain heroic types such as astronauts, mountain climbers, and world leaders might come from the same biological type as antisocial personalities. They are all characterized by fearlessness—a willingness to take on situations that would cause normal people excessive worry. This is not a bad thing; we need fearless people to explore new frontiers and take on risky challenges.
    [...]
    Lykken believes "the hero and the psychopath are twigs from the same branch."
     
    - http://www.intropsych.com/ch12_abnormal/antisocial_personality.html

    “Knowing others is intelligence;
    knowing yourself is true wisdom.
    Mastering others is strength;
    mastering yourself is true power.”
    - https://www.unz.com/announcement/expanding-our-science-and-history-coverage/#comment-1692056

    You might remember I put it this way a while back:

    I think one of the characteristics of true geniuses is that they are natural utilitarians and extremely good and talented at creating win-win, triple-win, etc. situations, i.e.,

    Creating order out of chaos, or creating peace out of war.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/freed/gigo-and-the-intelligence-of-countries-disordered-thoughts/#comment-1920573

    It seems that psychopaths are incapable to produce, create or even perceive of these types of win-win scenarios, no matter how high their intelligence quotient might be. They can only think in win-lose scenarios/outcomes, i.e., zero-sum games, etc., and if they realize that they cannot win in a certain situation, their goal becomes -- and they intentionally try to force -- a lose-lose outcome. An ``it's my way or the highway'' type of attitude and approach.

    Germany’s Jeopardy by Frank Salter
    Could the Immigrant Influx “End European Civilization”?
    http://socialtechnologies.com.au/germanys-jeopardy-could-the-immigrant-influx-end-european-civilization/

    Not only welfare declines but any services relying on contributions to public goods. That includes cooperation with police, charities, medical and military authorities.

    Foreign aid, which is international welfare, is even more fragile. Foreign aid is strongly and negatively correlated with donor countries’ ethnic diversity.[xiv]

    The irony could not be more cruel. By accepting large numbers of people of non-Western cultures, who are seeking to benefit from generous welfare, European countries not only risk losing domestic welfare for natives and immigrants alike, but reducing their foreign aid to immigrants’ homelands. It’s a lose-lose strategy.
    [...]
    Merkel is doubly cruel because she is stripping developing societies of their more educated and industrious people. The inevitable fall in European foreign aid will hurt poor countries around the world, caused by the stagnation of European economies and decline in social capital.
     
    For the record, I personally don't believe that Angela Merkel is a psychopath, but I am pretty sure Erdogan is:

    President Erdogan is no stranger to blackmailing the EU. He has previously used migrants as a ‘loaded gun’ with which to threaten European leaders. The message is clear: do what I say, or I’ll open the floodgates. This week, he’s been back to his old tricks – bashing the EU and making it clear that if membership talks failed, Turkey would open its borders and allow its three million refugees to stream into Europe. But what sparked this latest resurgence of fighting talk from Erdogan?

    The clue lies in the vote last week in Strasbourg, when 479 MEPs backed a decision to halt the process of Turkey’s EU accession.
     
    - https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/european-populism-rise-president-erdogan-can-now-blackmail-eu/

    Why do you think Merdel is not psycho???

    I think she and most of politicians tend to be sociopaths, slight different vibe. Sociopaths ARE neurotypical psychopaths, they are naturally emotional but lack on benignity. Psychopaths are neuroatypical ones, just like neurotypical nerds and aspergers. Classical psychopaths no have genuine emotional responses, so they must need emulate neurotypicals. Sociopaths don’t need emulate what they have on natural way. They are psychopaths who feel fear. Speculative too, for sure.

    I don’t believe geniuses must be or are always benign as you said. Remember that wisdom and genius is not the same thing.

    On other hand I think sociopaths can be quite productive but…

    Read More
  78. @Santoculto
    Remember for our lords here that genius without creativity is not genius in the same study about "genius genes" without "creativity genes" is not a study about genius capisce?? ;) and I still remember my debate with Res when he advocate that mister Thompson and the 7 hbds are not IQistics... Such a huge dishonesty by him!!

    Such a huge dishonesty by him!!

    Specific quotes (preferably with references to my actual words) of what I said that you consider dishonest, please. Along with a definition of “IQist.”

    Worth mentioning that the comment I am replying to has essentially zero content except for multiple ad hominems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Worth mentioning that the comment I am replying to has essentially zero content except for multiple ad hominems."

    Standard Santoculto comment.
    , @Santoculto
    "Multiple" ad hominem or just a one inconvenient personal fact.

    Ridiculous as eve isn't???

    All the time when I criticize something or someone the justification can be reduced to only one word: stupidity.

    Dishonest people, conscious and unconscious are complete, absolute waste of time. Unfortunately they are the last to know, understand and accept this.

    , @Santoculto
    You have a poor memory Res?

    Now you pretend to convince me that you still don't know what IQism is. Such a clown. But, I really don't want waste my time with you.
  79. @Logan
    None of which changes the fact that 175+ IQs are roughly one in a million. I'll leave it to you to calculate the odds that you would randomly know multiple people in this category.

    Also, as K says, the particular IQ test given is critical.

    I have taken about half a dozen such tests. One came back at 169, wildly out of scale with the others, because it was a dumb type of IQ test and the results weren't valid. So I don't run around telling people my IQ is 169.

    (In fact, I don't run around talking about my IQ at all!)

    I’ll leave it to you to calculate the odds that you would randomly know multiple people in this category.

    As if people’s acquaintances are selected randomly. What are the odds that WoOz and I would share one of those acquaintances given that we live on different continents?

    I do find the study’s case population summary: “cases consisting of 1238 individuals from the top 0.0003 (~170 mean IQ) of the population distribution of intelligence” not very useful. I can’t tell what kind of selection (if any) was used to choose the cases from the overall TIP study population. The mismatch between top 0.0003 (unless there is a missing “%”) and IQ 170 has been noted above. They do say “mean” (i.e. that is not the threshold, though that far out in the tail a random sample from a normal curve should have a mean pretty close to the threshold).

    Looking at the paper (and supplemental material) I did not see any additional description of the case population IQs. Dr. Thompson, is there any chance of getting more info about this at your conference? Either a box plot or a distribution for the case population IQs (assuming it is anything like a random sample) would cast some light on the fat tail discussion. My understanding was the TIP study did additional IQ testing after the initial SAT/ACT screen. Can anyone confirm/deny that?

    P.S. Surprised not to see any mention of the BGI study here since it had a similar underlying idea. This paper has a much more rigorous set of samples though AFAICT.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    "As if people's acquaintances are selected randomly". Quite!
  80. The single-nucleotide polymorphism heritability for the extreme IQ trait was 0.33 (0.02), which is the highest so far for a cognitive phenotype

    How actually this 0.33 number was calculated? They had two groups: lowIQ and highIQ and they had frequency of some SNP in each group. What were the frequencies that produced (and how) the 0.33 number?

    Read More
  81. A genome-wide polygenic score constructed from the GWA results accounted for 1.6% of the variance of intelligence in the normal range in an unselected sample of 3414 individuals

    How actually this is accomplished? In the sample N=3114 every individual has been assigned IQ test result value. He/she either has or does not have a given SNP. So a value of 0 or 1 can be assigned. So we have a two lists: {IQ}, {X=1 or 0}. Do we calculate the correlation between the two lists? Does 1.6% is the square of this correlation? Is it just that simple?

    Let generate various random lists {X=1 or 0} and calculate the correlation R with the list {IQ} for each of them . Make a histogram of all obtained R^2 values. What is the probability that R^2 is larger that 1.6/100 or smaller than -1.6/100? How many random lists I must generate to ascertain the validity of this Monte Carlo test?

    Read More
  82. @res

    I’ll leave it to you to calculate the odds that you would randomly know multiple people in this category.
     
    As if people's acquaintances are selected randomly. What are the odds that WoOz and I would share one of those acquaintances given that we live on different continents?

    I do find the study's case population summary: "cases consisting of 1238 individuals from the top 0.0003 (~170 mean IQ) of the population distribution of intelligence" not very useful. I can't tell what kind of selection (if any) was used to choose the cases from the overall TIP study population. The mismatch between top 0.0003 (unless there is a missing "%") and IQ 170 has been noted above. They do say "mean" (i.e. that is not the threshold, though that far out in the tail a random sample from a normal curve should have a mean pretty close to the threshold).

    Looking at the paper (and supplemental material) I did not see any additional description of the case population IQs. Dr. Thompson, is there any chance of getting more info about this at your conference? Either a box plot or a distribution for the case population IQs (assuming it is anything like a random sample) would cast some light on the fat tail discussion. My understanding was the TIP study did additional IQ testing after the initial SAT/ACT screen. Can anyone confirm/deny that?

    P.S. Surprised not to see any mention of the BGI study here since it had a similar underlying idea. This paper has a much more rigorous set of samples though AFAICT.

    “As if people’s acquaintances are selected randomly”. Quite!

    Read More
  83. @Logan
    None of which changes the fact that 175+ IQs are roughly one in a million. I'll leave it to you to calculate the odds that you would randomly know multiple people in this category.

    Also, as K says, the particular IQ test given is critical.

    I have taken about half a dozen such tests. One came back at 169, wildly out of scale with the others, because it was a dumb type of IQ test and the results weren't valid. So I don't run around telling people my IQ is 169.

    (In fact, I don't run around talking about my IQ at all!)

    Please switch on your 169. All sorts of things, includingas you mention, tests with different sds but the same average could affect the 1 in a million figure. Another is, as I thought I had pointed out, the lack of a single population to which Gauss’s calculations can be applied meaningfully. Suppose you have a population with 10 million IQ 98 average people, 5 million IQ 107 average and 3 million with average 112 how many >175s would you expect for any given sd or set of sds?
    Also, as res has noted, one’s acquaintances aren’t acquired randomly. It would have made a difference if my father had died when I was sixteen forcing me to leave school and take over a bisiness of running local government parking areas for a pwrcentage of the takings. That imagined case is not entirely random. I observed to a travelling compsnion in the north of England who owned just that kind of business that I probably hadn’t met anyone with an IQ in low 80s for a very long time and he replied that he met them all the time: his employees.

    Read More
  84. @res

    Such a huge dishonesty by him!!
     
    Specific quotes (preferably with references to my actual words) of what I said that you consider dishonest, please. Along with a definition of "IQist."

    Worth mentioning that the comment I am replying to has essentially zero content except for multiple ad hominems.

    “Worth mentioning that the comment I am replying to has essentially zero content except for multiple ad hominems.”

    Standard Santoculto comment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Personal Guido have a standard of academic charlatan. And your theory that humans are naturally athletes is completely wrong as usual, expected from you, if humans are one of the weakest species in physical strength. Indeed ancient Greeks were totally more correct than you when "they" said Prometheus gave to humans some of the Gods superpowers, ;)

    Vermins love to protect themselves, mafia of intellectual dishonesty.
  85. @res

    Such a huge dishonesty by him!!
     
    Specific quotes (preferably with references to my actual words) of what I said that you consider dishonest, please. Along with a definition of "IQist."

    Worth mentioning that the comment I am replying to has essentially zero content except for multiple ad hominems.

    “Multiple” ad hominem or just a one inconvenient personal fact.

    Ridiculous as eve isn’t???

    All the time when I criticize something or someone the justification can be reduced to only one word: stupidity.

    Dishonest people, conscious and unconscious are complete, absolute waste of time. Unfortunately they are the last to know, understand and accept this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    “Multiple” ad hominem or just a one inconvenient personal fact.
     
    Multiple ad hominems. Highlighted below in the original comment for convenience.

    Remember for our lords here that genius without creativity is not genius in the same study about “genius genes” without “creativity genes” is not a study about genius capisce?? ;) and I still remember my debate with Res when he advocate that mister Thompson and the 7 hbds are not IQistics… Such a huge dishonesty by him!!
     
    That is what it looks like to rebut someone's actual own words. You might try it sometime.

    Dishonest people, conscious and unconscious are complete, absolute waste of time. Unfortunately they are the last to know, understand and accept this.
     
    As I have said before, Santoculto's comments are much more fun (and illuminating, I suspect) if you read them as projection.
  86. @res

    Such a huge dishonesty by him!!
     
    Specific quotes (preferably with references to my actual words) of what I said that you consider dishonest, please. Along with a definition of "IQist."

    Worth mentioning that the comment I am replying to has essentially zero content except for multiple ad hominems.

    You have a poor memory Res?

    Now you pretend to convince me that you still don’t know what IQism is. Such a clown. But, I really don’t want waste my time with you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Now you pretend to convince me that you still don’t know what IQism is.
     
    It's not so much I don't know what it means as it being used here (by you and others) as a motte and bailey term for anything from "thinks IQ is useful" to "thinks we should all bow down to IQ and have our score tattooed on our foreheads." (the latter would be most inconvenient if you take more than one test)

    Which definition were you using in your comment 73?
  87. @RaceRealist88
    "Worth mentioning that the comment I am replying to has essentially zero content except for multiple ad hominems."

    Standard Santoculto comment.

    Personal Guido have a standard of academic charlatan. And your theory that humans are naturally athletes is completely wrong as usual, expected from you, if humans are one of the weakest species in physical strength. Indeed ancient Greeks were totally more correct than you when “they” said Prometheus gave to humans some of the Gods superpowers, ;)

    Vermins love to protect themselves, mafia of intellectual dishonesty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "And your theory that humans are naturally athletes is completely wrong as usual, expected from you, if humans are one of the weakest species in physical strength."

    No it's not.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/18/man-the-athlete/

    We have are superior in endurance running. We have adaptations derived from endurance running.

    I know what I'm talking about here, I know the human body. You don't.

    "Indeed ancient Greeks were totally more correct than you when “they” said Prometheus gave to humans some of the Gods superpowers"

    How so?

    Is this about genes? About that...

    "Genes … are purely passive. DNA on its own does absolutely nothing until activated by the rest of the system through transcription factors, markers of one kind or another, interactions with the proteins. So on its own, DNA is not a cause in an active sense. I think it is better described as a passive data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

    Most people don't understand this though.

    Keep your baseless assertions out of this. Can you have a serious conversation without dumb attacks?

    , @res
    Another multiple ad hominem, minimum content Santoculto comment. Let's play the highlighting game again to keep score.

    Personal Guido have a standard of academic charlatan. And your theory that humans are naturally athletes is completely wrong as usual, expected from you, if humans are one of the weakest species in physical strength. Indeed ancient Greeks were totally more correct than you when “they” said Prometheus gave to humans some of the Gods superpowers, ;)

    Vermins love to protect themselves, mafia of intellectual dishonesty.
     

    So, by my count, four ad hominems (perhaps "expected from you" as well?). I'll leave it to to someone else to try to extract useful content from that--I failed to.
  88. @Santoculto
    Personal Guido have a standard of academic charlatan. And your theory that humans are naturally athletes is completely wrong as usual, expected from you, if humans are one of the weakest species in physical strength. Indeed ancient Greeks were totally more correct than you when "they" said Prometheus gave to humans some of the Gods superpowers, ;)

    Vermins love to protect themselves, mafia of intellectual dishonesty.

    “And your theory that humans are naturally athletes is completely wrong as usual, expected from you, if humans are one of the weakest species in physical strength.”

    No it’s not.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/18/man-the-athlete/

    We have are superior in endurance running. We have adaptations derived from endurance running.

    I know what I’m talking about here, I know the human body. You don’t.

    “Indeed ancient Greeks were totally more correct than you when “they” said Prometheus gave to humans some of the Gods superpowers”

    How so?

    Is this about genes? About that…

    “Genes … are purely passive. DNA on its own does absolutely nothing until activated by the rest of the system through transcription factors, markers of one kind or another, interactions with the proteins. So on its own, DNA is not a cause in an active sense. I think it is better described as a passive data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

    Most people don’t understand this though.

    Keep your baseless assertions out of this. Can you have a serious conversation without dumb attacks?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    You're geneticist nor scientist neither have a scientific mind but a ACADEMIC mind, it's quite different.

    Humans are the weakest, it's something you can't deny. Human intelligence evolve to compensate human muscular weaknesses or agility.

    You're never right, you need to be always exposed as fraudulent poseur.

    You just replicate the specific knowledge of your area that you barely understand.

    Evidently humans are not extremely weak but if compared with other living beings we are and it's that's matter here. Intelligence, something that's all living beings have, must be over-developed in humans again to compensate lack of ability, special kinesthetic talent or strength that all nonhuman living beings have. This explain why I used Prometheus myth.

    Where, in what hell you think you understand genetics??????

    Scary personal Guido.

    Your last quotation don't explain or refute nothing what I wrote. -_-
  89. @Santoculto
    "Multiple" ad hominem or just a one inconvenient personal fact.

    Ridiculous as eve isn't???

    All the time when I criticize something or someone the justification can be reduced to only one word: stupidity.

    Dishonest people, conscious and unconscious are complete, absolute waste of time. Unfortunately they are the last to know, understand and accept this.

    “Multiple” ad hominem or just a one inconvenient personal fact.

    Multiple ad hominems. Highlighted below in the original comment for convenience.

    Remember for our lords here that genius without creativity is not genius in the same study about “genius genes” without “creativity genes” is not a study about genius capisce?? ;) and I still remember my debate with Res when he advocate that mister Thompson and the 7 hbds are not IQistics… Such a huge dishonesty by him!!

    That is what it looks like to rebut someone’s actual own words. You might try it sometime.

    Dishonest people, conscious and unconscious are complete, absolute waste of time. Unfortunately they are the last to know, understand and accept this.

    As I have said before, Santoculto’s comments are much more fun (and illuminating, I suspect) if you read them as projection.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Ad hominem are not always bad. And you're Thompson?? Or any other hbb?? If not... "multiple" correctly directed ad hominem but not all for you baby.

    Yes I'm Iqistic and self-hating hbd.

    Iqistics believe IQ = intelligence. Genius = higher IQ. Creativity?? They don't know what is it. Rationality?? Idem. Intelligence? = IQ.

    "Genius genes" = genes of highest IQ folks = IQism = what you and most if not almost hbd believe it's a correct reasoning.

    It's waste of time to deal with that dishonest people as you. Or you're extremely cynical (very likely) or you truly have a very difficult work to neutralize your own inconsistencies. But I always think self contradictory people know when they are lying.
  90. @Santoculto
    You have a poor memory Res?

    Now you pretend to convince me that you still don't know what IQism is. Such a clown. But, I really don't want waste my time with you.

    Now you pretend to convince me that you still don’t know what IQism is.

    It’s not so much I don’t know what it means as it being used here (by you and others) as a motte and bailey term for anything from “thinks IQ is useful” to “thinks we should all bow down to IQ and have our score tattooed on our foreheads.” (the latter would be most inconvenient if you take more than one test)

    Which definition were you using in your comment 73?

    Read More
  91. @Santoculto
    Personal Guido have a standard of academic charlatan. And your theory that humans are naturally athletes is completely wrong as usual, expected from you, if humans are one of the weakest species in physical strength. Indeed ancient Greeks were totally more correct than you when "they" said Prometheus gave to humans some of the Gods superpowers, ;)

    Vermins love to protect themselves, mafia of intellectual dishonesty.

    Another multiple ad hominem, minimum content Santoculto comment. Let’s play the highlighting game again to keep score.

    Personal Guido have a standard of academic charlatan. And your theory that humans are naturally athletes is completely wrong as usual, expected from you, if humans are one of the weakest species in physical strength. Indeed ancient Greeks were totally more correct than you when “they” said Prometheus gave to humans some of the Gods superpowers, ;)

    Vermins love to protect themselves, mafia of intellectual dishonesty.

    So, by my count, four ad hominems (perhaps “expected from you” as well?). I’ll leave it to to someone else to try to extract useful content from that–I failed to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Rest
    Are you a snowflake? Or just when it's convenient for you?

    Are you personal Guido too??

    My modus operandi with the personal Guido here is since certain time like that. I just gave him what he must deserve, be exposed as a fraudulent poseur he is. You knew R&R believe in the causality of honor culture and black violence?? ;)

    Ah, Ress, just because I said a long time that partially speaking my reason to be against IQ is because it's likely I wouldn't score higher in IQ tests DON'T PROVE that: I'm wrong, that IQ tests don't reflect perfectly intelligence. And sometimes cognitive prejudices can be factually correct too, for example, your racial feelings and the racial reality isn't?? An? ;]
  92. @RaceRealist88
    "And your theory that humans are naturally athletes is completely wrong as usual, expected from you, if humans are one of the weakest species in physical strength."

    No it's not.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/03/18/man-the-athlete/

    We have are superior in endurance running. We have adaptations derived from endurance running.

    I know what I'm talking about here, I know the human body. You don't.

    "Indeed ancient Greeks were totally more correct than you when “they” said Prometheus gave to humans some of the Gods superpowers"

    How so?

    Is this about genes? About that...

    "Genes … are purely passive. DNA on its own does absolutely nothing until activated by the rest of the system through transcription factors, markers of one kind or another, interactions with the proteins. So on its own, DNA is not a cause in an active sense. I think it is better described as a passive data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

    Most people don't understand this though.

    Keep your baseless assertions out of this. Can you have a serious conversation without dumb attacks?

    You’re geneticist nor scientist neither have a scientific mind but a ACADEMIC mind, it’s quite different.

    Humans are the weakest, it’s something you can’t deny. Human intelligence evolve to compensate human muscular weaknesses or agility.

    You’re never right, you need to be always exposed as fraudulent poseur.

    You just replicate the specific knowledge of your area that you barely understand.

    Evidently humans are not extremely weak but if compared with other living beings we are and it’s that’s matter here. Intelligence, something that’s all living beings have, must be over-developed in humans again to compensate lack of ability, special kinesthetic talent or strength that all nonhuman living beings have. This explain why I used Prometheus myth.

    Where, in what hell you think you understand genetics??????

    Scary personal Guido.

    Your last quotation don’t explain or refute nothing what I wrote. -_-

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "You’re geneticist nor scientist neither have a scientific mind but a ACADEMIC mind, it’s quite different."

    Please reword this.

    "Humans are the weakest, it’s something you can’t deny. Human intelligence evolve to compensate human muscular weaknesses or agility."

    I never denied this. We have superior endurance running physiology and anatomy. That is a fact. Human intelligence is only possible with out physiology and anatomy.

    "You’re never right, you need to be always exposed as fraudulent poseur"

    Source?

    "You just replicate the specific knowledge of your area that you barely understand"

    Prove that I don't understand it. You just asserting "you don't understand something" is meaningless without evidence for the assertion.

    "Evidently humans are not extremely weak but if compared with other living beings we are and it’s that’s matter here. Intelligence, something that’s all living beings have, must be over-developed in humans again to compensate lack of ability, special kinesthetic talent or strength that all nonhuman living beings have. This explain why I used Prometheus myth."

    And we have superior endurance running capabilities. Read the linked article in my previous comment.

    "Where, in what hell you think you understand genetics??????"

    I have a better understanding than you. Genes are the slaves, not the masters, of our development. This is why "genetic determinism" is retarded. Learn something about intelligent physiology.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/13/microbial-intelligence-and-intelligent-physiology/

    "Your last quotation don’t explain or refute nothing what I wrote. -_-"

    You just don't understand why it does.

    You're literally clueless. But that's to be expected when someone delves into something they're literally ignorant about.

    Keep with the fallacies. They make you look really "intelligent".
  93. @res

    “Multiple” ad hominem or just a one inconvenient personal fact.
     
    Multiple ad hominems. Highlighted below in the original comment for convenience.

    Remember for our lords here that genius without creativity is not genius in the same study about “genius genes” without “creativity genes” is not a study about genius capisce?? ;) and I still remember my debate with Res when he advocate that mister Thompson and the 7 hbds are not IQistics… Such a huge dishonesty by him!!
     
    That is what it looks like to rebut someone's actual own words. You might try it sometime.

    Dishonest people, conscious and unconscious are complete, absolute waste of time. Unfortunately they are the last to know, understand and accept this.
     
    As I have said before, Santoculto's comments are much more fun (and illuminating, I suspect) if you read them as projection.

    Ad hominem are not always bad. And you’re Thompson?? Or any other hbb?? If not… “multiple” correctly directed ad hominem but not all for you baby.

    Yes I’m Iqistic and self-hating hbd.

    Iqistics believe IQ = intelligence. Genius = higher IQ. Creativity?? They don’t know what is it. Rationality?? Idem. Intelligence? = IQ.

    “Genius genes” = genes of highest IQ folks = IQism = what you and most if not almost hbd believe it’s a correct reasoning.

    It’s waste of time to deal with that dishonest people as you. Or you’re extremely cynical (very likely) or you truly have a very difficult work to neutralize your own inconsistencies. But I always think self contradictory people know when they are lying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Where are these "genius genes"? The gene with the largest effect on IQ that we know of only gives .3 points.

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

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

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/29/height-and-iq-genes/
  94. This is a tangent, but I have wondered about some “genius / IQ” questions for a while and wonder if anyone has answers.

    1. Are there any reliable lists of the IQ of various public intellectuals?

    2. Is there any way to estimate someone’s IQ by analyzing their published writing?

    3. Is verbal IQ at all more “tricky” to measure than mathematical? It seems there is clarity about who are the smartest physicists and mathematicians, but much less clarity about who are the smartest verbalists.

    For example, here two lists: the twenty most cited US law professors in constitutional law, and the tenured professors of English at Yale University. What kind of IQ do we think they have?

    http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2016/05/twenty-most-cited-constitutional-public-law-faculty-in-the-united-states-2010-2014-inclusive.html

    http://english.yale.edu/faculty-staff?field_people_type_value=Professors&field_fields_of_interest_value=All

    4. Are SAT/GRE correlations with IQ very reliable? According to these, I think I have a high IQ, but I am quite impressed with many commenters here who seem much smarter than me. Does this site attract a lot of smart commenters? (All joking aside)

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    Non-expert here. I like your questions #1 and #2, although I don't have a clue whether answering them is possible in sort of a reasonably reliable way. I think there might be some utility in seeing, say, a 250-word essay written by a 100 IQ person, the same essay as written by a 120 IQ person, a 140 IQ person. There might be a lot of mischief in the idea, too. I'm not sure.

    There are, of course, stories of very bright people who supposedly neither write nor speak well. Paul Dirac, impenetrable German philosophers, et. al. Some profs at my local state university seem to have consciously adopted an appearance and conversational manner I think of as "intelligence enhancement cosmetics". Trimmed goatee, jacket with elbow patches, and an elliptical, but provocative, way of speaking meant to suggest expertise. But, you actually need subject matter expertise to sniff out someone who's laying it on a bit thick.

    I'd mentioned before we make judgments about intelligence by seat-of-the-pants methods, but maybe there's room for a popular literature on judging intelligence, maybe not as rigorous as IQ and genetics, but more rigorous than guesstimating.
  95. @res
    Another multiple ad hominem, minimum content Santoculto comment. Let's play the highlighting game again to keep score.

    Personal Guido have a standard of academic charlatan. And your theory that humans are naturally athletes is completely wrong as usual, expected from you, if humans are one of the weakest species in physical strength. Indeed ancient Greeks were totally more correct than you when “they” said Prometheus gave to humans some of the Gods superpowers, ;)

    Vermins love to protect themselves, mafia of intellectual dishonesty.
     

    So, by my count, four ad hominems (perhaps "expected from you" as well?). I'll leave it to to someone else to try to extract useful content from that--I failed to.

    Rest
    Are you a snowflake? Or just when it’s convenient for you?

    Are you personal Guido too??

    My modus operandi with the personal Guido here is since certain time like that. I just gave him what he must deserve, be exposed as a fraudulent poseur he is. You knew R&R believe in the causality of honor culture and black violence?? ;)

    Ah, Ress, just because I said a long time that partially speaking my reason to be against IQ is because it’s likely I wouldn’t score higher in IQ tests DON’T PROVE that: I’m wrong, that IQ tests don’t reflect perfectly intelligence. And sometimes cognitive prejudices can be factually correct too, for example, your racial feelings and the racial reality isn’t?? An? ;]

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "You knew R&R believe in the causality of honor culture and black violence?"

    Let me show you some of my knowledge here.

    There are five simple steps to the production of testosterone: 1) DNA codes for mRNA; 2) mRNA codes for the synthesis of an enzyme in the cytoplasm; 3) luteinizing hormone stimulates the production of another messenger in the cell when testosterone is needed; 4) this second messenger activates the enzyme; 5) the enzyme then converts cholesterol to testosterone (Leydig cells produce testosterone in the presence of luteinizing hormone). That’s how testosterone is produced in the body. It is indirectly controlled by DNA.

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

    You don't know anything about physiology or hormones so why are you talking. Anyone who's interested, read my articles on the matter and don't take Santoculto's biased (and uneducated) opinion about something that I have education in.

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

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

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/03/race-testosterone-and-prostate-cancer/

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

    Santoculto you're clueless here. Why are you talking about something that your literally ignorant to? All you can say is "muh genes", all the while having absolutely no understanding of the data I cite nor my arguments.

    That's to be expected from you. That and ad hominems. Fallacies are more your level. God knows you're not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to follow what I talk about. You can only say "genes", as if that means anything. You don't understand genes at all. Which, if course, is to be expected.

    , @res

    Are you a snowflake? Or just when it’s convenient for you?
     
    Neither. I just like calling you out (I suppose I have this futile hope that you might adjust the ad hominem/content ratio of your comments). It is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel though, so gets boring quickly. I do take umbrage at being accused of dishonesty without evidence being given. In an earlier day that was the kind of comment people would fight duels over.

    It's fun to interact with people who start by using phrases like "personal Guido" (what does that actually mean, anyway?) and finish with questioning my racial feelings. Sounds like more projection to me.
  96. @Santoculto
    Ad hominem are not always bad. And you're Thompson?? Or any other hbb?? If not... "multiple" correctly directed ad hominem but not all for you baby.

    Yes I'm Iqistic and self-hating hbd.

    Iqistics believe IQ = intelligence. Genius = higher IQ. Creativity?? They don't know what is it. Rationality?? Idem. Intelligence? = IQ.

    "Genius genes" = genes of highest IQ folks = IQism = what you and most if not almost hbd believe it's a correct reasoning.

    It's waste of time to deal with that dishonest people as you. Or you're extremely cynical (very likely) or you truly have a very difficult work to neutralize your own inconsistencies. But I always think self contradictory people know when they are lying.

    Where are these “genius genes”? The gene with the largest effect on IQ that we know of only gives .3 points.

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

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

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/29/height-and-iq-genes/

    Read More
  97. @Santoculto
    You're geneticist nor scientist neither have a scientific mind but a ACADEMIC mind, it's quite different.

    Humans are the weakest, it's something you can't deny. Human intelligence evolve to compensate human muscular weaknesses or agility.

    You're never right, you need to be always exposed as fraudulent poseur.

    You just replicate the specific knowledge of your area that you barely understand.

    Evidently humans are not extremely weak but if compared with other living beings we are and it's that's matter here. Intelligence, something that's all living beings have, must be over-developed in humans again to compensate lack of ability, special kinesthetic talent or strength that all nonhuman living beings have. This explain why I used Prometheus myth.

    Where, in what hell you think you understand genetics??????

    Scary personal Guido.

    Your last quotation don't explain or refute nothing what I wrote. -_-

    “You’re geneticist nor scientist neither have a scientific mind but a ACADEMIC mind, it’s quite different.”

    Please reword this.

    “Humans are the weakest, it’s something you can’t deny. Human intelligence evolve to compensate human muscular weaknesses or agility.”

    I never denied this. We have superior endurance running physiology and anatomy. That is a fact. Human intelligence is only possible with out physiology and anatomy.

    “You’re never right, you need to be always exposed as fraudulent poseur”

    Source?

    “You just replicate the specific knowledge of your area that you barely understand”

    Prove that I don’t understand it. You just asserting “you don’t understand something” is meaningless without evidence for the assertion.

    “Evidently humans are not extremely weak but if compared with other living beings we are and it’s that’s matter here. Intelligence, something that’s all living beings have, must be over-developed in humans again to compensate lack of ability, special kinesthetic talent or strength that all nonhuman living beings have. This explain why I used Prometheus myth.”

    And we have superior endurance running capabilities. Read the linked article in my previous comment.

    “Where, in what hell you think you understand genetics??????”

    I have a better understanding than you. Genes are the slaves, not the masters, of our development. This is why “genetic determinism” is retarded. Learn something about intelligent physiology.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/13/microbial-intelligence-and-intelligent-physiology/

    “Your last quotation don’t explain or refute nothing what I wrote. -_-”

    You just don’t understand why it does.

    You’re literally clueless. But that’s to be expected when someone delves into something they’re literally ignorant about.

    Keep with the fallacies. They make you look really “intelligent”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    I only forget the word not.

    You're subconsciously status-seeking.... A subhuman. Just like that.

    To be academic don't make you automatically a scientist. Capisce??

    Your thiory is: Humans evolved to be "just like" athletes. Otherwise buddy!!! I will not repeat myself what I wrote above.

    Repeat with me: "I'm not geneticist". 200 times and two ave marias. Again, your quote don't make sense in this micro and nervous debate, got it?

    Hahahahaha

    "intelligence"
    , @Santoculto
    I Jump the funny part when you try to elaborate your comments... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    Yeaaah Guido, as scientist you're successful personal trainer.

    Genes are slaves...this (explain) why genetic determinism is dumb...

    Grrreat deduction!!!! I'm scary how fantastic you're!!!!
  98. @Santoculto
    Rest
    Are you a snowflake? Or just when it's convenient for you?

    Are you personal Guido too??

    My modus operandi with the personal Guido here is since certain time like that. I just gave him what he must deserve, be exposed as a fraudulent poseur he is. You knew R&R believe in the causality of honor culture and black violence?? ;)

    Ah, Ress, just because I said a long time that partially speaking my reason to be against IQ is because it's likely I wouldn't score higher in IQ tests DON'T PROVE that: I'm wrong, that IQ tests don't reflect perfectly intelligence. And sometimes cognitive prejudices can be factually correct too, for example, your racial feelings and the racial reality isn't?? An? ;]

    “You knew R&R believe in the causality of honor culture and black violence?”

    Let me show you some of my knowledge here.

    There are five simple steps to the production of testosterone: 1) DNA codes for mRNA; 2) mRNA codes for the synthesis of an enzyme in the cytoplasm; 3) luteinizing hormone stimulates the production of another messenger in the cell when testosterone is needed; 4) this second messenger activates the enzyme; 5) the enzyme then converts cholesterol to testosterone (Leydig cells produce testosterone in the presence of luteinizing hormone). That’s how testosterone is produced in the body. It is indirectly controlled by DNA.

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

    You don’t know anything about physiology or hormones so why are you talking. Anyone who’s interested, read my articles on the matter and don’t take Santoculto’s biased (and uneducated) opinion about something that I have education in.

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

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

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/06/03/race-testosterone-and-prostate-cancer/

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

    Santoculto you’re clueless here. Why are you talking about something that your literally ignorant to? All you can say is “muh genes”, all the while having absolutely no understanding of the data I cite nor my arguments.

    That’s to be expected from you. That and ad hominems. Fallacies are more your level. God knows you’re not intelligent or knowledgeable enough to follow what I talk about. You can only say “genes”, as if that means anything. You don’t understand genes at all. Which, if course, is to be expected.

    Read More
  99. @RaceRealist88
    Where are these "genius genes"? The gene with the largest effect on IQ that we know of only gives .3 points.

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

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

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/05/29/height-and-iq-genes/

    Duuuuuh

    Try again Guido

    Or better,

    Don’t try -_-

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Again, to be expected from you because you literally speak about things you're ignorant to.
  100. @Santoculto
    Rest
    Are you a snowflake? Or just when it's convenient for you?

    Are you personal Guido too??

    My modus operandi with the personal Guido here is since certain time like that. I just gave him what he must deserve, be exposed as a fraudulent poseur he is. You knew R&R believe in the causality of honor culture and black violence?? ;)

    Ah, Ress, just because I said a long time that partially speaking my reason to be against IQ is because it's likely I wouldn't score higher in IQ tests DON'T PROVE that: I'm wrong, that IQ tests don't reflect perfectly intelligence. And sometimes cognitive prejudices can be factually correct too, for example, your racial feelings and the racial reality isn't?? An? ;]

    Are you a snowflake? Or just when it’s convenient for you?

    Neither. I just like calling you out (I suppose I have this futile hope that you might adjust the ad hominem/content ratio of your comments). It is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel though, so gets boring quickly. I do take umbrage at being accused of dishonesty without evidence being given. In an earlier day that was the kind of comment people would fight duels over.

    It’s fun to interact with people who start by using phrases like “personal Guido” (what does that actually mean, anyway?) and finish with questioning my racial feelings. Sounds like more projection to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Maybe you're interacting with real people and not with your robot friends.

    About this specific matter when you tried to deny for many times that's a real thing/I'm right, we no have more stuff to debate. It's already saturated. You never will admit you're being dishonest denying that IQism live amongst us here on hbd-zone. This post where genetics, genius, IQ but not creativity are the key-words, just prove what I and other people here are saying for months or even for years.

    Your levels of cynicism is huge but seems quite common, what is not common is people as me that give significant value for virtues and perfectionist application.

    A simple question
    This post is IQistic??

    Your last words simply don't make sense only if you understood nothing what I wrote.
    , @Santoculto
    Personal Guido = race realist and not you.
  101. @RaceRealist88
    "You’re geneticist nor scientist neither have a scientific mind but a ACADEMIC mind, it’s quite different."

    Please reword this.

    "Humans are the weakest, it’s something you can’t deny. Human intelligence evolve to compensate human muscular weaknesses or agility."

    I never denied this. We have superior endurance running physiology and anatomy. That is a fact. Human intelligence is only possible with out physiology and anatomy.

    "You’re never right, you need to be always exposed as fraudulent poseur"

    Source?

    "You just replicate the specific knowledge of your area that you barely understand"

    Prove that I don't understand it. You just asserting "you don't understand something" is meaningless without evidence for the assertion.

    "Evidently humans are not extremely weak but if compared with other living beings we are and it’s that’s matter here. Intelligence, something that’s all living beings have, must be over-developed in humans again to compensate lack of ability, special kinesthetic talent or strength that all nonhuman living beings have. This explain why I used Prometheus myth."

    And we have superior endurance running capabilities. Read the linked article in my previous comment.

    "Where, in what hell you think you understand genetics??????"

    I have a better understanding than you. Genes are the slaves, not the masters, of our development. This is why "genetic determinism" is retarded. Learn something about intelligent physiology.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/13/microbial-intelligence-and-intelligent-physiology/

    "Your last quotation don’t explain or refute nothing what I wrote. -_-"

    You just don't understand why it does.

    You're literally clueless. But that's to be expected when someone delves into something they're literally ignorant about.

    Keep with the fallacies. They make you look really "intelligent".

    I only forget the word not.

    You’re subconsciously status-seeking…. A subhuman. Just like that.

    To be academic don’t make you automatically a scientist. Capisce??

    Your thiory is: Humans evolved to be “just like” athletes. Otherwise buddy!!! I will not repeat myself what I wrote above.

    Repeat with me: “I’m not geneticist”. 200 times and two ave marias. Again, your quote don’t make sense in this micro and nervous debate, got it?

    Hahahahaha

    “intelligence”

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "You’re subconsciously status-seeking…. A subhuman. Just like that."

    Fallacious.

    "To be academic don’t make you automatically a scientist. Capisce??"

    I never once claimed to be a scientist. I claimed to have an education in what I'm speaking about, which I do.

    "Your thiory is: Humans evolved to be “just like” athletes. Otherwise buddy!!! I will not repeat myself what I wrote above."

    You don't understand my argument, so, again, why are you talking about it? You think humans evolved to sit in chairs all day? No. We evolved to be active. Read, and understand, the linked article. It's that simple. You have nothing to say other than vacuous bullshit. The norm for you.

    "Repeat with me: “I’m not geneticist”. 200 times and two ave marias. Again, your quote don’t make sense in this micro and nervous debate, got it?"

    Yes it does. How do genes regulate bodily functions then? Please explain that to me.

    "Hahahahaha

    “intelligence”"

    Doesn't say anything to my comment. I don't understand why your comments that are full of inane ramblings along with logical fallacies are published here. You literally bring nothing to the conversation. You speak about things you're not educated in because you think you know something. Lemme tell you something buddy: you're literally clueless.

  102. @RaceRealist88
    "You’re geneticist nor scientist neither have a scientific mind but a ACADEMIC mind, it’s quite different."

    Please reword this.

    "Humans are the weakest, it’s something you can’t deny. Human intelligence evolve to compensate human muscular weaknesses or agility."

    I never denied this. We have superior endurance running physiology and anatomy. That is a fact. Human intelligence is only possible with out physiology and anatomy.

    "You’re never right, you need to be always exposed as fraudulent poseur"

    Source?

    "You just replicate the specific knowledge of your area that you barely understand"

    Prove that I don't understand it. You just asserting "you don't understand something" is meaningless without evidence for the assertion.

    "Evidently humans are not extremely weak but if compared with other living beings we are and it’s that’s matter here. Intelligence, something that’s all living beings have, must be over-developed in humans again to compensate lack of ability, special kinesthetic talent or strength that all nonhuman living beings have. This explain why I used Prometheus myth."

    And we have superior endurance running capabilities. Read the linked article in my previous comment.

    "Where, in what hell you think you understand genetics??????"

    I have a better understanding than you. Genes are the slaves, not the masters, of our development. This is why "genetic determinism" is retarded. Learn something about intelligent physiology.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/13/microbial-intelligence-and-intelligent-physiology/

    "Your last quotation don’t explain or refute nothing what I wrote. -_-"

    You just don't understand why it does.

    You're literally clueless. But that's to be expected when someone delves into something they're literally ignorant about.

    Keep with the fallacies. They make you look really "intelligent".

    I Jump the funny part when you try to elaborate your comments… Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    Yeaaah Guido, as scientist you’re successful personal trainer.

    Genes are slaves…this (explain) why genetic determinism is dumb…

    Grrreat deduction!!!! I’m scary how fantastic you’re!!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Genes are slaves…this (explain) why genetic determinism is dumb…"

    You're still literally showing no understanding. Keep commenting though. This makes you look really "intelligent".
  103. @Santoculto
    Duuuuuh

    Try again Guido


    Or better,

    Don't try -_-

    Again, to be expected from you because you literally speak about things you’re ignorant to.

    Read More
  104. @Santoculto
    I only forget the word not.

    You're subconsciously status-seeking.... A subhuman. Just like that.

    To be academic don't make you automatically a scientist. Capisce??

    Your thiory is: Humans evolved to be "just like" athletes. Otherwise buddy!!! I will not repeat myself what I wrote above.

    Repeat with me: "I'm not geneticist". 200 times and two ave marias. Again, your quote don't make sense in this micro and nervous debate, got it?

    Hahahahaha

    "intelligence"

    “You’re subconsciously status-seeking…. A subhuman. Just like that.”

    Fallacious.

    “To be academic don’t make you automatically a scientist. Capisce??”

    I never once claimed to be a scientist. I claimed to have an education in what I’m speaking about, which I do.

    “Your thiory is: Humans evolved to be “just like” athletes. Otherwise buddy!!! I will not repeat myself what I wrote above.”

    You don’t understand my argument, so, again, why are you talking about it? You think humans evolved to sit in chairs all day? No. We evolved to be active. Read, and understand, the linked article. It’s that simple. You have nothing to say other than vacuous bullshit. The norm for you.

    “Repeat with me: “I’m not geneticist”. 200 times and two ave marias. Again, your quote don’t make sense in this micro and nervous debate, got it?”

    Yes it does. How do genes regulate bodily functions then? Please explain that to me.

    “Hahahahaha

    “intelligence””

    Doesn’t say anything to my comment. I don’t understand why your comments that are full of inane ramblings along with logical fallacies are published here. You literally bring nothing to the conversation. You speak about things you’re not educated in because you think you know something. Lemme tell you something buddy: you’re literally clueless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    Fallacious.
     
    Hahahahaha, you're sick, psychotic!!!

    The difference between who you really are and how you analyse yourself is gigantic.

    You even try to defend yourself, probably because you don't know how.


    I never once claimed to be a scientist. I claimed to have an education in what I’m speaking about, which I do.
     
    You act as you're scientist or the most important, as if you have a scientific mind.

    You don’t understand my argument, so, again, why are you talking about it? You think humans evolved to sit in chairs all day? No. We evolved to be active. Read, and understand, the linked article. It’s that simple. You have nothing to say other than vacuous bullshit. The norm for you.
     
    ''We evolved to be active''

    Yes, and supposedly it's only one thing that ''make us'' evolutionarily unique.

    If humans evolved to be active why we are so lazy** huum*

    And why many of us love to be inactive**

    ''Evolve to be active'' = ''evolve 'just like' to be athlete''

    Hyper-active in mental ways, specially, and not in physical ways, period.


    Yes it does. How do genes regulate bodily functions then? Please explain that to me.
     
    I'm not geneticist as you pretend to be. I don't know. But you think you know because you read in the paper or memorize vaguely some abstract sentences. It's not ''to know''.

    You said genes are slaves...

    I only know that genes it's some-thing that help in primordial ways to promote body [and brain] behavior, quasi-exactly as the energy that promote the behavior of man-made structures, a guidelines of stereotypical/patternical operationalities.


    Doesn’t say anything to my comment. I don’t understand why your comments that are full of inane ramblings along with logical fallacies are published here. You literally bring nothing to the conversation. You speak about things you’re not educated in because you think you know something. Lemme tell you something buddy: you’re literally clueless.
     
    Maybe because at least i'm entertainer.

    But you*

    U're a complete retarded, you're a vile representation of human misery, a big army of very stupid persons who think completely other-wise about themselves destroying any chance to the wisdom can breathe. Your levels of self-knowledge is the same than a nonhuman living beings, near to zero. You react as a authomaton with NO-self-reflection of your own attitudes and thoughts.

    Three intelectualities: independence, honesty and humility. The last two you clearly no have. Independence* At least you make a melting pot of pseudo-sciences on your humble blog and everywhere you are ''contributing'' [in negative or in null ways]. I really don't think everything you wrote in your humble blog or here or in pp blog is completely wrong, but most of them really are, if not already in the first sentences, in the last ones.

    I don't know if i'm the first person to say for you this/your sad reality: you're a not genius, as you think you're.

  105. @res

    Are you a snowflake? Or just when it’s convenient for you?
     
    Neither. I just like calling you out (I suppose I have this futile hope that you might adjust the ad hominem/content ratio of your comments). It is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel though, so gets boring quickly. I do take umbrage at being accused of dishonesty without evidence being given. In an earlier day that was the kind of comment people would fight duels over.

    It's fun to interact with people who start by using phrases like "personal Guido" (what does that actually mean, anyway?) and finish with questioning my racial feelings. Sounds like more projection to me.

    Maybe you’re interacting with real people and not with your robot friends.

    About this specific matter when you tried to deny for many times that’s a real thing/I’m right, we no have more stuff to debate. It’s already saturated. You never will admit you’re being dishonest denying that IQism live amongst us here on hbd-zone. This post where genetics, genius, IQ but not creativity are the key-words, just prove what I and other people here are saying for months or even for years.

    Your levels of cynicism is huge but seems quite common, what is not common is people as me that give significant value for virtues and perfectionist application.

    A simple question
    This post is IQistic??

    Your last words simply don’t make sense only if you understood nothing what I wrote.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    A simple question
    This post is IQistic??
     
    An even simpler question: What is your definition of "IQistic"? Is it simply not acknowledging the supremacy of (conveniently difficult to measure) creativity as the most important (only?) metric of human ability?

    I'm curious how Dr. Thompson was supposed to talk about creativity in this post when the topic is a paper that did not discuss it? Creativity is discussed from time to time in this blog. For example, this post: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/creativity-and-fluid-intelligence/

    P.S. I sincerely hope that someday you become more fluent in English so you can come back here and see just how incoherent some of your comments were.
  106. @res

    Are you a snowflake? Or just when it’s convenient for you?
     
    Neither. I just like calling you out (I suppose I have this futile hope that you might adjust the ad hominem/content ratio of your comments). It is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel though, so gets boring quickly. I do take umbrage at being accused of dishonesty without evidence being given. In an earlier day that was the kind of comment people would fight duels over.

    It's fun to interact with people who start by using phrases like "personal Guido" (what does that actually mean, anyway?) and finish with questioning my racial feelings. Sounds like more projection to me.

    Personal Guido = race realist and not you.

    Read More
  107. @Santoculto
    I Jump the funny part when you try to elaborate your comments... Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    Yeaaah Guido, as scientist you're successful personal trainer.

    Genes are slaves...this (explain) why genetic determinism is dumb...

    Grrreat deduction!!!! I'm scary how fantastic you're!!!!

    “Genes are slaves…this (explain) why genetic determinism is dumb…”

    You’re still literally showing no understanding. Keep commenting though. This makes you look really “intelligent”.

    Read More
  108. @Santoculto
    Maybe you're interacting with real people and not with your robot friends.

    About this specific matter when you tried to deny for many times that's a real thing/I'm right, we no have more stuff to debate. It's already saturated. You never will admit you're being dishonest denying that IQism live amongst us here on hbd-zone. This post where genetics, genius, IQ but not creativity are the key-words, just prove what I and other people here are saying for months or even for years.

    Your levels of cynicism is huge but seems quite common, what is not common is people as me that give significant value for virtues and perfectionist application.

    A simple question
    This post is IQistic??

    Your last words simply don't make sense only if you understood nothing what I wrote.

    A simple question
    This post is IQistic??

    An even simpler question: What is your definition of “IQistic”? Is it simply not acknowledging the supremacy of (conveniently difficult to measure) creativity as the most important (only?) metric of human ability?

    I’m curious how Dr. Thompson was supposed to talk about creativity in this post when the topic is a paper that did not discuss it? Creativity is discussed from time to time in this blog. For example, this post: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/creativity-and-fluid-intelligence/

    P.S. I sincerely hope that someday you become more fluent in English so you can come back here and see just how incoherent some of your comments were.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    No dear, i asked first, pleeeeeas

    ''(conveniently difficult to measure) creativity''
     
    And intelligence is supposedly easier...

    Are you a Thompson lawyer*

    ''Fluid intelligence**'', i thought only- general intelligence that exist...

    P.S. I sincerely hope that someday you become more fluent in English so you can come back here and see just how incoherent some of your comments were.
     
    Stop to use the same excuse, be more creative Rest!!!

    I know you can learn well what i wrote here, for example, THAT sentence now... i know you can.

    Unfortunately because i don't know who you're, it's difficult to know what is your real intentions, but even if i could know him better...

    You're incapable to accept one of the most obvious things, all the time here in hbd-zone: IQism.

    I already wrote above a VERY summarized description of IQism...

    Do you read my comments or just pass the eyes*

    It's not the language barrier, you use this excuse to avoid accept the inconvenient fact as a good child you're...

    Even in your perverse mind i look like retarded, i know very well the difference to write in very minimalistic ways, as i do in my poor english, and write in incoherent ways.

    Little = / = confuse.
  109. @res

    A simple question
    This post is IQistic??
     
    An even simpler question: What is your definition of "IQistic"? Is it simply not acknowledging the supremacy of (conveniently difficult to measure) creativity as the most important (only?) metric of human ability?

    I'm curious how Dr. Thompson was supposed to talk about creativity in this post when the topic is a paper that did not discuss it? Creativity is discussed from time to time in this blog. For example, this post: http://www.unz.com/jthompson/creativity-and-fluid-intelligence/

    P.S. I sincerely hope that someday you become more fluent in English so you can come back here and see just how incoherent some of your comments were.

    No dear, i asked first, pleeeeeas

    ”(conveniently difficult to measure) creativity”

    And intelligence is supposedly easier…

    Are you a Thompson lawyer*

    ”Fluid intelligence**”, i thought only- general intelligence that exist…

    P.S. I sincerely hope that someday you become more fluent in English so you can come back here and see just how incoherent some of your comments were.

    Stop to use the same excuse, be more creative Rest!!!

    I know you can learn well what i wrote here, for example, THAT sentence now… i know you can.

    Unfortunately because i don’t know who you’re, it’s difficult to know what is your real intentions, but even if i could know him better…

    You’re incapable to accept one of the most obvious things, all the time here in hbd-zone: IQism.

    I already wrote above a VERY summarized description of IQism…

    Do you read my comments or just pass the eyes*

    It’s not the language barrier, you use this excuse to avoid accept the inconvenient fact as a good child you’re…

    Even in your perverse mind i look like retarded, i know very well the difference to write in very minimalistic ways, as i do in my poor english, and write in incoherent ways.

    Little = / = confuse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "i thought only- general intelligence that exist…"

    Where does it exist? Is it physiological? Do physiologists study it? If physiologists did study it, would they rank it in an order like psychologists do?

  110. @RaceRealist88
    "You’re subconsciously status-seeking…. A subhuman. Just like that."

    Fallacious.

    "To be academic don’t make you automatically a scientist. Capisce??"

    I never once claimed to be a scientist. I claimed to have an education in what I'm speaking about, which I do.

    "Your thiory is: Humans evolved to be “just like” athletes. Otherwise buddy!!! I will not repeat myself what I wrote above."

    You don't understand my argument, so, again, why are you talking about it? You think humans evolved to sit in chairs all day? No. We evolved to be active. Read, and understand, the linked article. It's that simple. You have nothing to say other than vacuous bullshit. The norm for you.

    "Repeat with me: “I’m not geneticist”. 200 times and two ave marias. Again, your quote don’t make sense in this micro and nervous debate, got it?"

    Yes it does. How do genes regulate bodily functions then? Please explain that to me.

    "Hahahahaha

    “intelligence”"

    Doesn't say anything to my comment. I don't understand why your comments that are full of inane ramblings along with logical fallacies are published here. You literally bring nothing to the conversation. You speak about things you're not educated in because you think you know something. Lemme tell you something buddy: you're literally clueless.

    Fallacious.

    Hahahahaha, you’re sick, psychotic!!!

    The difference between who you really are and how you analyse yourself is gigantic.

    You even try to defend yourself, probably because you don’t know how.

    I never once claimed to be a scientist. I claimed to have an education in what I’m speaking about, which I do.

    You act as you’re scientist or the most important, as if you have a scientific mind.

    You don’t understand my argument, so, again, why are you talking about it? You think humans evolved to sit in chairs all day? No. We evolved to be active. Read, and understand, the linked article. It’s that simple. You have nothing to say other than vacuous bullshit. The norm for you.

    ”We evolved to be active”

    Yes, and supposedly it’s only one thing that ”make us” evolutionarily unique.

    If humans evolved to be active why we are so lazy** huum*

    And why many of us love to be inactive**

    ”Evolve to be active” = ”evolve ‘just like’ to be athlete”

    Hyper-active in mental ways, specially, and not in physical ways, period.

    Yes it does. How do genes regulate bodily functions then? Please explain that to me.

    I’m not geneticist as you pretend to be. I don’t know. But you think you know because you read in the paper or memorize vaguely some abstract sentences. It’s not ”to know”.

    You said genes are slaves…

    I only know that genes it’s some-thing that help in primordial ways to promote body [and brain] behavior, quasi-exactly as the energy that promote the behavior of man-made structures, a guidelines of stereotypical/patternical operationalities.

    Doesn’t say anything to my comment. I don’t understand why your comments that are full of inane ramblings along with logical fallacies are published here. You literally bring nothing to the conversation. You speak about things you’re not educated in because you think you know something. Lemme tell you something buddy: you’re literally clueless.

    Maybe because at least i’m entertainer.

    But you*

    U’re a complete retarded, you’re a vile representation of human misery, a big army of very stupid persons who think completely other-wise about themselves destroying any chance to the wisdom can breathe. Your levels of self-knowledge is the same than a nonhuman living beings, near to zero. You react as a authomaton with NO-self-reflection of your own attitudes and thoughts.

    Three intelectualities: independence, honesty and humility. The last two you clearly no have. Independence* At least you make a melting pot of pseudo-sciences on your humble blog and everywhere you are ”contributing” [in negative or in null ways]. I really don’t think everything you wrote in your humble blog or here or in pp blog is completely wrong, but most of them really are, if not already in the first sentences, in the last ones.

    I don’t know if i’m the first person to say for you this/your sad reality: you’re a not genius, as you think you’re.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "You act as you’re scientist or the most important, as if you have a scientific mind."

    I 'act' confident when speaking of things that I know about---especially things I'm educated with---because that's how you should carry yourself anywhere you go.

    'Yes, and supposedly it’s only one thing that ”make us” evolutionarily unique."

    Did I say that it was the 'only' thing that "make us" (sic) unique? No. I said it is one factor.

    "If humans evolved to be active why we are so lazy

    And why many of us love to be inactive**"

    This is dumb. Obesogenic environments (environments that encourage obesity, ie first-world countries) cause physical inactivity. There are a whole slew of environmental factors (see evolutionary mismatches) that cause both the obesity epidemic and physical inactivity.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/15/agriculture-and-diseases-of-civilization/

    If you want to get technically, the beginning of our sedantariness was around that time. Novel food items which we were not accustomed to eat combined with no physical inactivity causes a myriad of the diseases of civilization you see today.

    "”Evolve to be active” = ”evolve ‘just like’ to be athlete”"

    Are we adapted for any (possible) future environments or for what occurred, say, 10-30 kya?

    "I’m not geneticist as you pretend to be. I don’t know. But you think you know because you read in the paper or memorize vaguely some abstract sentences. It’s not ”to know”."

    I don't 'pretend to be' a geneticist. Just because I'm not a geneticist doesn't mean that I don't know what genes do in the body. If you think that only geneticists can 'know' about genetics and not any other disciplines, then you're sadly mistaken. You can say that I 'memorize vaguely abstract some sentences' (sic) but that doesn't say shit to what I write to you, it's baseless and has no place in a discussion (if that's what you want to call this).

    "You said genes are slaves…"

    This is true. Genes don't do anything without the intelligent physiology guiding it. Genes do not direct development.

    I didn't even read the rest of the comment after this part. Stop wasting your time writing it. Not reading it nor responding to it.
  111. @Santoculto
    No dear, i asked first, pleeeeeas

    ''(conveniently difficult to measure) creativity''
     
    And intelligence is supposedly easier...

    Are you a Thompson lawyer*

    ''Fluid intelligence**'', i thought only- general intelligence that exist...

    P.S. I sincerely hope that someday you become more fluent in English so you can come back here and see just how incoherent some of your comments were.
     
    Stop to use the same excuse, be more creative Rest!!!

    I know you can learn well what i wrote here, for example, THAT sentence now... i know you can.

    Unfortunately because i don't know who you're, it's difficult to know what is your real intentions, but even if i could know him better...

    You're incapable to accept one of the most obvious things, all the time here in hbd-zone: IQism.

    I already wrote above a VERY summarized description of IQism...

    Do you read my comments or just pass the eyes*

    It's not the language barrier, you use this excuse to avoid accept the inconvenient fact as a good child you're...

    Even in your perverse mind i look like retarded, i know very well the difference to write in very minimalistic ways, as i do in my poor english, and write in incoherent ways.

    Little = / = confuse.

    “i thought only- general intelligence that exist…”

    Where does it exist? Is it physiological? Do physiologists study it? If physiologists did study it, would they rank it in an order like psychologists do?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    At priori, ''physiologists'' don't need study nothing about psychology to prove psychological phenomena, period.
  112. @RaceRealist88
    "i thought only- general intelligence that exist…"

    Where does it exist? Is it physiological? Do physiologists study it? If physiologists did study it, would they rank it in an order like psychologists do?

    At priori, ”physiologists” don’t need study nothing about psychology to prove psychological phenomena, period.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Psychologists claim that the general factor is physiological. If it were, and of physiologists studied it, would physiologists put it into a rank order like psychologists do? Psychologists are the ones creeping into physiology by claiming that the general factor is physiological.
  113. @Santoculto
    At priori, ''physiologists'' don't need study nothing about psychology to prove psychological phenomena, period.

    Psychologists claim that the general factor is physiological. If it were, and of physiologists studied it, would physiologists put it into a rank order like psychologists do? Psychologists are the ones creeping into physiology by claiming that the general factor is physiological.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Because obviously it is, it is "organic". Psychological approach is also needed.

    But this still don't mean that only understanding the physiological structure of intelligence we will finally understand it in better way.
  114. @RaceRealist88
    Psychologists claim that the general factor is physiological. If it were, and of physiologists studied it, would physiologists put it into a rank order like psychologists do? Psychologists are the ones creeping into physiology by claiming that the general factor is physiological.

    Because obviously it is, it is “organic”. Psychological approach is also needed.

    But this still don’t mean that only understanding the physiological structure of intelligence we will finally understand it in better way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Because obviously it is, it is “organic”. "

    "Obviously" the earth is flat.

    You shouldn't take things as 'obvious', especially scientific matters. Learn to science.

    I don't care that it's 'obvious' that the general factor is "organic". I want hard data showing causation, not just correlations that could have other factors as the cause---which is exactly the matter with things like reaction time.

    "Psychological approach is also needed."

    Psychologists need to not overstep their boundaries by asserting something is physiological.

    "But this still don’t mean that only understanding the physiological structure of intelligence we will finally understand it in better way."

    http://i.imgur.com/2OggKej.jpg

    Psychologists make the claim that it is physiological. If it is physiological and physiologists studied it, then they would not rank it like psychologists do, as physiological traits are not 'ranked' in physiology.

    If physiologists were to study the general factor, why would that be the only physiological trait that is ranked? See how dumb it sounds putting it into that context?
  115. @benjaminl
    This is a tangent, but I have wondered about some "genius / IQ" questions for a while and wonder if anyone has answers.

    1. Are there any reliable lists of the IQ of various public intellectuals?

    2. Is there any way to estimate someone's IQ by analyzing their published writing?

    3. Is verbal IQ at all more "tricky" to measure than mathematical? It seems there is clarity about who are the smartest physicists and mathematicians, but much less clarity about who are the smartest verbalists.

    For example, here two lists: the twenty most cited US law professors in constitutional law, and the tenured professors of English at Yale University. What kind of IQ do we think they have?

    http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2016/05/twenty-most-cited-constitutional-public-law-faculty-in-the-united-states-2010-2014-inclusive.html
    http://english.yale.edu/faculty-staff?field_people_type_value=Professors&field_fields_of_interest_value=All

    4. Are SAT/GRE correlations with IQ very reliable? According to these, I think I have a high IQ, but I am quite impressed with many commenters here who seem much smarter than me. Does this site attract a lot of smart commenters? (All joking aside)

    Non-expert here. I like your questions #1 and #2, although I don’t have a clue whether answering them is possible in sort of a reasonably reliable way. I think there might be some utility in seeing, say, a 250-word essay written by a 100 IQ person, the same essay as written by a 120 IQ person, a 140 IQ person. There might be a lot of mischief in the idea, too. I’m not sure.

    There are, of course, stories of very bright people who supposedly neither write nor speak well. Paul Dirac, impenetrable German philosophers, et. al. Some profs at my local state university seem to have consciously adopted an appearance and conversational manner I think of as “intelligence enhancement cosmetics”. Trimmed goatee, jacket with elbow patches, and an elliptical, but provocative, way of speaking meant to suggest expertise. But, you actually need subject matter expertise to sniff out someone who’s laying it on a bit thick.

    I’d mentioned before we make judgments about intelligence by seat-of-the-pants methods, but maybe there’s room for a popular literature on judging intelligence, maybe not as rigorous as IQ and genetics, but more rigorous than guesstimating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Vocabulary size and superficial knowledge of words it's what IQ test analyze. Verbal "intelligence", ;), tend to be a auxiliary skills, super important but still auxiliary, to help us to communicate, persuade, analyze/describe the reality we are interacting, invent recreational ends for example poetry and music. Also verbal intelligence is the capacity to learn more than one language.

    People who have the biggest vocabularies may not be good to knowledge of words.

    Those who are very good to communicate may have a just above average vocabulary size and so on.

    Verbal intelligence is strongly related with emotional side of general intelligence obviously because to communicate, interact with other people, beings and also with surrounded reality we need both, many times words are symbols of our feelings OR impressions.

    Not only for verbal aspect but also in all facets of intelligence we will find subdivisions of specialties, often invisible in generalist tests as IQ.
  116. @JackOH
    Non-expert here. I like your questions #1 and #2, although I don't have a clue whether answering them is possible in sort of a reasonably reliable way. I think there might be some utility in seeing, say, a 250-word essay written by a 100 IQ person, the same essay as written by a 120 IQ person, a 140 IQ person. There might be a lot of mischief in the idea, too. I'm not sure.

    There are, of course, stories of very bright people who supposedly neither write nor speak well. Paul Dirac, impenetrable German philosophers, et. al. Some profs at my local state university seem to have consciously adopted an appearance and conversational manner I think of as "intelligence enhancement cosmetics". Trimmed goatee, jacket with elbow patches, and an elliptical, but provocative, way of speaking meant to suggest expertise. But, you actually need subject matter expertise to sniff out someone who's laying it on a bit thick.

    I'd mentioned before we make judgments about intelligence by seat-of-the-pants methods, but maybe there's room for a popular literature on judging intelligence, maybe not as rigorous as IQ and genetics, but more rigorous than guesstimating.

    Vocabulary size and superficial knowledge of words it’s what IQ test analyze. Verbal “intelligence”, ;), tend to be a auxiliary skills, super important but still auxiliary, to help us to communicate, persuade, analyze/describe the reality we are interacting, invent recreational ends for example poetry and music. Also verbal intelligence is the capacity to learn more than one language.

    People who have the biggest vocabularies may not be good to knowledge of words.

    Those who are very good to communicate may have a just above average vocabulary size and so on.

    Verbal intelligence is strongly related with emotional side of general intelligence obviously because to communicate, interact with other people, beings and also with surrounded reality we need both, many times words are symbols of our feelings OR impressions.

    Not only for verbal aspect but also in all facets of intelligence we will find subdivisions of specialties, often invisible in generalist tests as IQ.

    Read More
  117. @Santoculto

    Fallacious.
     
    Hahahahaha, you're sick, psychotic!!!

    The difference between who you really are and how you analyse yourself is gigantic.

    You even try to defend yourself, probably because you don't know how.


    I never once claimed to be a scientist. I claimed to have an education in what I’m speaking about, which I do.
     
    You act as you're scientist or the most important, as if you have a scientific mind.

    You don’t understand my argument, so, again, why are you talking about it? You think humans evolved to sit in chairs all day? No. We evolved to be active. Read, and understand, the linked article. It’s that simple. You have nothing to say other than vacuous bullshit. The norm for you.
     
    ''We evolved to be active''

    Yes, and supposedly it's only one thing that ''make us'' evolutionarily unique.

    If humans evolved to be active why we are so lazy** huum*

    And why many of us love to be inactive**

    ''Evolve to be active'' = ''evolve 'just like' to be athlete''

    Hyper-active in mental ways, specially, and not in physical ways, period.


    Yes it does. How do genes regulate bodily functions then? Please explain that to me.
     
    I'm not geneticist as you pretend to be. I don't know. But you think you know because you read in the paper or memorize vaguely some abstract sentences. It's not ''to know''.

    You said genes are slaves...

    I only know that genes it's some-thing that help in primordial ways to promote body [and brain] behavior, quasi-exactly as the energy that promote the behavior of man-made structures, a guidelines of stereotypical/patternical operationalities.


    Doesn’t say anything to my comment. I don’t understand why your comments that are full of inane ramblings along with logical fallacies are published here. You literally bring nothing to the conversation. You speak about things you’re not educated in because you think you know something. Lemme tell you something buddy: you’re literally clueless.
     
    Maybe because at least i'm entertainer.

    But you*

    U're a complete retarded, you're a vile representation of human misery, a big army of very stupid persons who think completely other-wise about themselves destroying any chance to the wisdom can breathe. Your levels of self-knowledge is the same than a nonhuman living beings, near to zero. You react as a authomaton with NO-self-reflection of your own attitudes and thoughts.

    Three intelectualities: independence, honesty and humility. The last two you clearly no have. Independence* At least you make a melting pot of pseudo-sciences on your humble blog and everywhere you are ''contributing'' [in negative or in null ways]. I really don't think everything you wrote in your humble blog or here or in pp blog is completely wrong, but most of them really are, if not already in the first sentences, in the last ones.

    I don't know if i'm the first person to say for you this/your sad reality: you're a not genius, as you think you're.

    “You act as you’re scientist or the most important, as if you have a scientific mind.”

    I ‘act’ confident when speaking of things that I know about—especially things I’m educated with—because that’s how you should carry yourself anywhere you go.

    ‘Yes, and supposedly it’s only one thing that ”make us” evolutionarily unique.”

    Did I say that it was the ‘only’ thing that “make us” (sic) unique? No. I said it is one factor.

    “If humans evolved to be active why we are so lazy

    And why many of us love to be inactive**

    This is dumb. Obesogenic environments (environments that encourage obesity, ie first-world countries) cause physical inactivity. There are a whole slew of environmental factors (see evolutionary mismatches) that cause both the obesity epidemic and physical inactivity.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/15/agriculture-and-diseases-of-civilization/

    If you want to get technically, the beginning of our sedantariness was around that time. Novel food items which we were not accustomed to eat combined with no physical inactivity causes a myriad of the diseases of civilization you see today.

    “”Evolve to be active” = ”evolve ‘just like’ to be athlete””

    Are we adapted for any (possible) future environments or for what occurred, say, 10-30 kya?

    “I’m not geneticist as you pretend to be. I don’t know. But you think you know because you read in the paper or memorize vaguely some abstract sentences. It’s not ”to know”.”

    I don’t ‘pretend to be’ a geneticist. Just because I’m not a geneticist doesn’t mean that I don’t know what genes do in the body. If you think that only geneticists can ‘know’ about genetics and not any other disciplines, then you’re sadly mistaken. You can say that I ‘memorize vaguely abstract some sentences’ (sic) but that doesn’t say shit to what I write to you, it’s baseless and has no place in a discussion (if that’s what you want to call this).

    “You said genes are slaves…”

    This is true. Genes don’t do anything without the intelligent physiology guiding it. Genes do not direct development.

    I didn’t even read the rest of the comment after this part. Stop wasting your time writing it. Not reading it nor responding to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    Confidently???

    This explain everything, ;))

    Second sentence: "we evolve to be active"

    Very strong and conclusive statement to be just "it's one factor".

    Amerindians love to do not-so-active activities or tasks. Most humans are not workaholics and love have that time of inactiveness.

    I don't understand the question.

    Know what genes to do with body (basically everything?? Or almost everything?) is one thing. All the time play as a geneticist is other thing. (genes are slaves blablabla... even as metaphor, it's something difficult to grasp easily for non-real-experts).

    Say shit= personal facts= you

    To know the real intentions of people is one of the most important thing to do before to start a conversation or try to accept what the other is saying.

    And it's one of the most neglected issues.

    Baseless? Example?

    If it's my speculations, it's even worse to you because it's mean you're not just that dumb but closed-minded.

    This explain why you don't understand abstractions but pretend to know. Your sentence about "genes are not slaves" show how deep is your misunderstanding about this matter and yes, that you think write vague and repetitive sentences is enough. Why genes are not directly responsible for the development of organism?? Hum?

    You're very retarded to think if I will stop to write whatever I want just because u said to me to do it.

    I will repeat again and again and again.

    Almost everything you have the petulance to debate as if you're a great knowledgeable is already in the beginning wrong or wil be, it's matter to expect, soon.

    I hope you stop to call me to"debate", "debate", because it's really make me waste my time trying to correct your retarded vagueness and it's truly irritating to do.
  118. @Santoculto
    Because obviously it is, it is "organic". Psychological approach is also needed.

    But this still don't mean that only understanding the physiological structure of intelligence we will finally understand it in better way.

    “Because obviously it is, it is “organic”. ”

    “Obviously” the earth is flat.

    You shouldn’t take things as ‘obvious’, especially scientific matters. Learn to science.

    I don’t care that it’s ‘obvious’ that the general factor is “organic”. I want hard data showing causation, not just correlations that could have other factors as the cause—which is exactly the matter with things like reaction time.

    “Psychological approach is also needed.”

    Psychologists need to not overstep their boundaries by asserting something is physiological.

    “But this still don’t mean that only understanding the physiological structure of intelligence we will finally understand it in better way.”

    I Want to Believe

    Psychologists make the claim that it is physiological. If it is physiological and physiologists studied it, then they would not rank it like psychologists do, as physiological traits are not ‘ranked’ in physiology.

    If physiologists were to study the general factor, why would that be the only physiological trait that is ranked? See how dumb it sounds putting it into that context?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    You put yourself in the guillotine all the time, lol.

    First gem: Your comparison was failed and it was you who did the obvious question. Humans/beings are not in the same magnitude of observation than planets, isn't my little goy?

    Learn to science HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    "March of science" ;)))

    Rethinking: Behavior is a organic expression, fundamentally speaking. So general factor is primordially a psychological or behavioral phenomenon, ;))

    Third gem: O.K

    Behaviors of beings come from their organic roots.

    , @Santoculto
    Fourth gem: At priori it's look OBVIOUS thing to do, ;), leave that job for physiologists, but as I said above, behavior and its patterns can be mostly detectable and understandable at naked eyes at least their descriptions and stereotypicalities. The problem for psychologists or better, for scientists on psychology is not that this stuff is not your department, indeed it is too, but they tend to fool themselves as you.

    Last gem: No delayed, again, behavior is mostly or centrally a psychological phenomenon or a organic expression/ expression of organism. I don't need to know what is sadness only if I search for their organic roots. I even don't need do it to understand the mechanisms that predispose people to become sad, from very short term to depression. Indeed most of science is paradoxically futile at philosophical eyes or at least my eyes, because even seems quite interesting to understand the deep and organic mechanism of behavior it's doesn't mean it is absolutely necessary.

    You're talking about "physiologists" but neuroscientists already do this task isn't?
  119. @RaceRealist88
    "You act as you’re scientist or the most important, as if you have a scientific mind."

    I 'act' confident when speaking of things that I know about---especially things I'm educated with---because that's how you should carry yourself anywhere you go.

    'Yes, and supposedly it’s only one thing that ”make us” evolutionarily unique."

    Did I say that it was the 'only' thing that "make us" (sic) unique? No. I said it is one factor.

    "If humans evolved to be active why we are so lazy

    And why many of us love to be inactive**"

    This is dumb. Obesogenic environments (environments that encourage obesity, ie first-world countries) cause physical inactivity. There are a whole slew of environmental factors (see evolutionary mismatches) that cause both the obesity epidemic and physical inactivity.

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/02/19/an-evolutionary-look-at-obesity/

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/15/agriculture-and-diseases-of-civilization/

    If you want to get technically, the beginning of our sedantariness was around that time. Novel food items which we were not accustomed to eat combined with no physical inactivity causes a myriad of the diseases of civilization you see today.

    "”Evolve to be active” = ”evolve ‘just like’ to be athlete”"

    Are we adapted for any (possible) future environments or for what occurred, say, 10-30 kya?

    "I’m not geneticist as you pretend to be. I don’t know. But you think you know because you read in the paper or memorize vaguely some abstract sentences. It’s not ”to know”."

    I don't 'pretend to be' a geneticist. Just because I'm not a geneticist doesn't mean that I don't know what genes do in the body. If you think that only geneticists can 'know' about genetics and not any other disciplines, then you're sadly mistaken. You can say that I 'memorize vaguely abstract some sentences' (sic) but that doesn't say shit to what I write to you, it's baseless and has no place in a discussion (if that's what you want to call this).

    "You said genes are slaves…"

    This is true. Genes don't do anything without the intelligent physiology guiding it. Genes do not direct development.

    I didn't even read the rest of the comment after this part. Stop wasting your time writing it. Not reading it nor responding to it.

    Confidently???

    This explain everything, ;))

    Second sentence: “we evolve to be active”

    Very strong and conclusive statement to be just “it’s one factor”.

    Amerindians love to do not-so-active activities or tasks. Most humans are not workaholics and love have that time of inactiveness.

    I don’t understand the question.

    Know what genes to do with body (basically everything?? Or almost everything?) is one thing. All the time play as a geneticist is other thing. (genes are slaves blablabla… even as metaphor, it’s something difficult to grasp easily for non-real-experts).

    Say shit= personal facts= you

    To know the real intentions of people is one of the most important thing to do before to start a conversation or try to accept what the other is saying.

    And it’s one of the most neglected issues.

    Baseless? Example?

    If it’s my speculations, it’s even worse to you because it’s mean you’re not just that dumb but closed-minded.

    This explain why you don’t understand abstractions but pretend to know. Your sentence about “genes are not slaves” show how deep is your misunderstanding about this matter and yes, that you think write vague and repetitive sentences is enough. Why genes are not directly responsible for the development of organism?? Hum?

    You’re very retarded to think if I will stop to write whatever I want just because u said to me to do it.

    I will repeat again and again and again.

    Almost everything you have the petulance to debate as if you’re a great knowledgeable is already in the beginning wrong or wil be, it’s matter to expect, soon.

    I hope you stop to call me to”debate”, “debate”, because it’s really make me waste my time trying to correct your retarded vagueness and it’s truly irritating to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Amerindians love to do not-so-active activities or tasks. Most humans are not workaholics and love have that time of inactiveness."

    No. You ignored my statement. Are we selected for possible future environments, or past environments? I see you cannot answer direct questions.

    "I don’t understand the question."

    You don't understand a lot of things which is why you should stop talking.

    "Know what genes to do with body (basically everything?? Or almost everything?) is one thing. All the time play as a geneticist is other thing. (genes are slaves blablabla… even as metaphor, it’s something difficult to grasp easily for non-real-experts)."

    Right. I never claimed to 'be an expert' there. I have stated my creds here a few times. That's more than good enough.

    "This explain why you don’t understand abstractions but pretend to know. Your sentence about “genes are not slaves” show how deep is your misunderstanding about this matter and yes, that you think write vague and repetitive sentences is enough. Why genes are not directly responsible for the development of organism?? Hum?"

    ...This is how I know you don't read articles provided to you. It was explained. Genes are passive and don't do anything until directed by intelligent physiology.

    "You’re very retarded to think if I will stop to write whatever I want just because u said to me to do it."

    You can write 50000 words to me, I won't read all of it and I won't respond to all of it, it's just a waste of your time. I am no longer responding to any of your inane bullshit that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand (re your stupid 'you only memorize' things. You don't know shit about what I'm talking about so that's your fallback).

    "I hope you stop to call me to”debate”, “debate”, because it’s really make me waste my time trying to correct your retarded vagueness and it’s truly irritating to do."

    You don't understand physiology so there will be no 'correcting' going on.

    "Behaviors of beings come from their organic roots."

    Behaviors occur due to environmental stimulus.

    "At priori it’s look OBVIOUS thing to do, ;), leave that job for physiologists, but as I said above, behavior and its patterns can be mostly detectable and understandable at naked eyes at least their descriptions and stereotypicalities. The problem for psychologists or better, for scientists on psychology is not that this stuff is not your department, indeed it is too, but they tend to fool themselves as you."

    No it's literally not their field. Psychologists have physics envy, especially with the general factor as it's one of the only replicable psychological variables. Sorry that you speak about things that you're ignorant about. As I said, that makes you look really 'intelligent'. =^)

    "No delayed, again, behavior is mostly or centrally a psychological phenomenon or a organic expression/ expression of organism. I don’t need to know what is sadness only if I search for their organic roots. I even don’t need do it to understand the mechanisms that predispose people to become sad, from very short term to depression. Indeed most of science is paradoxically futile at philosophical eyes or at least my eyes, because even seems quite interesting to understand the deep and organic mechanism of behavior it’s doesn’t mean it is absolutely necessary."

    Behavior occurs due to environmental stimuli than hormones which dictate behavior. Learn to physiology. Most of science is futile? Uneducated and biased Santoculto is saying that most of science is futile? That's hilarious.

    "You’re talking about “physiologists” but neuroscientists already do this task isn’t?"

    Why is 'physiologists' in quotes? Is it not a real discipline? It's a hell of a lot more respected than psychology and, let me tell you, not just any moron can apply for and get a phsyiology degree like they can a psychology degree.

    Even then, it'd still be a phsyiological trait.

    Do physiologists rank traits? Yes or no, simple question. If the general factor is physiological, and if physiologists studied it, it would not be put into a rank order:

    In sum, no physiologist would suggest the following:

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

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

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

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

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

    The heritability of BMR is between .4 and .8. Can you imagine a physiologist praising a higher level as 'better' than another? How about stroke volume?

    If you don't understand this now, then you're really a special person.

  120. @RaceRealist88
    "Because obviously it is, it is “organic”. "

    "Obviously" the earth is flat.

    You shouldn't take things as 'obvious', especially scientific matters. Learn to science.

    I don't care that it's 'obvious' that the general factor is "organic". I want hard data showing causation, not just correlations that could have other factors as the cause---which is exactly the matter with things like reaction time.

    "Psychological approach is also needed."

    Psychologists need to not overstep their boundaries by asserting something is physiological.

    "But this still don’t mean that only understanding the physiological structure of intelligence we will finally understand it in better way."

    http://i.imgur.com/2OggKej.jpg

    Psychologists make the claim that it is physiological. If it is physiological and physiologists studied it, then they would not rank it like psychologists do, as physiological traits are not 'ranked' in physiology.

    If physiologists were to study the general factor, why would that be the only physiological trait that is ranked? See how dumb it sounds putting it into that context?

    You put yourself in the guillotine all the time, lol.

    First gem: Your comparison was failed and it was you who did the obvious question. Humans/beings are not in the same magnitude of observation than planets, isn’t my little goy?

    Learn to science HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    “March of science” ;)))

    Rethinking: Behavior is a organic expression, fundamentally speaking. So general factor is primordially a psychological or behavioral phenomenon, ;))

    Third gem: O.K

    Behaviors of beings come from their organic roots.

    Read More
  121. @RaceRealist88
    "Because obviously it is, it is “organic”. "

    "Obviously" the earth is flat.

    You shouldn't take things as 'obvious', especially scientific matters. Learn to science.

    I don't care that it's 'obvious' that the general factor is "organic". I want hard data showing causation, not just correlations that could have other factors as the cause---which is exactly the matter with things like reaction time.

    "Psychological approach is also needed."

    Psychologists need to not overstep their boundaries by asserting something is physiological.

    "But this still don’t mean that only understanding the physiological structure of intelligence we will finally understand it in better way."

    http://i.imgur.com/2OggKej.jpg

    Psychologists make the claim that it is physiological. If it is physiological and physiologists studied it, then they would not rank it like psychologists do, as physiological traits are not 'ranked' in physiology.

    If physiologists were to study the general factor, why would that be the only physiological trait that is ranked? See how dumb it sounds putting it into that context?

    Fourth gem: At priori it’s look OBVIOUS thing to do, ;), leave that job for physiologists, but as I said above, behavior and its patterns can be mostly detectable and understandable at naked eyes at least their descriptions and stereotypicalities. The problem for psychologists or better, for scientists on psychology is not that this stuff is not your department, indeed it is too, but they tend to fool themselves as you.

    Last gem: No delayed, again, behavior is mostly or centrally a psychological phenomenon or a organic expression/ expression of organism. I don’t need to know what is sadness only if I search for their organic roots. I even don’t need do it to understand the mechanisms that predispose people to become sad, from very short term to depression. Indeed most of science is paradoxically futile at philosophical eyes or at least my eyes, because even seems quite interesting to understand the deep and organic mechanism of behavior it’s doesn’t mean it is absolutely necessary.

    You’re talking about “physiologists” but neuroscientists already do this task isn’t?

    Read More
  122. @Santoculto
    Confidently???

    This explain everything, ;))

    Second sentence: "we evolve to be active"

    Very strong and conclusive statement to be just "it's one factor".

    Amerindians love to do not-so-active activities or tasks. Most humans are not workaholics and love have that time of inactiveness.

    I don't understand the question.

    Know what genes to do with body (basically everything?? Or almost everything?) is one thing. All the time play as a geneticist is other thing. (genes are slaves blablabla... even as metaphor, it's something difficult to grasp easily for non-real-experts).

    Say shit= personal facts= you

    To know the real intentions of people is one of the most important thing to do before to start a conversation or try to accept what the other is saying.

    And it's one of the most neglected issues.

    Baseless? Example?

    If it's my speculations, it's even worse to you because it's mean you're not just that dumb but closed-minded.

    This explain why you don't understand abstractions but pretend to know. Your sentence about "genes are not slaves" show how deep is your misunderstanding about this matter and yes, that you think write vague and repetitive sentences is enough. Why genes are not directly responsible for the development of organism?? Hum?

    You're very retarded to think if I will stop to write whatever I want just because u said to me to do it.

    I will repeat again and again and again.

    Almost everything you have the petulance to debate as if you're a great knowledgeable is already in the beginning wrong or wil be, it's matter to expect, soon.

    I hope you stop to call me to"debate", "debate", because it's really make me waste my time trying to correct your retarded vagueness and it's truly irritating to do.

    “Amerindians love to do not-so-active activities or tasks. Most humans are not workaholics and love have that time of inactiveness.”

    No. You ignored my statement. Are we selected for possible future environments, or past environments? I see you cannot answer direct questions.

    “I don’t understand the question.”

    You don’t understand a lot of things which is why you should stop talking.

    “Know what genes to do with body (basically everything?? Or almost everything?) is one thing. All the time play as a geneticist is other thing. (genes are slaves blablabla… even as metaphor, it’s something difficult to grasp easily for non-real-experts).”

    Right. I never claimed to ‘be an expert’ there. I have stated my creds here a few times. That’s more than good enough.

    “This explain why you don’t understand abstractions but pretend to know. Your sentence about “genes are not slaves” show how deep is your misunderstanding about this matter and yes, that you think write vague and repetitive sentences is enough. Why genes are not directly responsible for the development of organism?? Hum?”

    …This is how I know you don’t read articles provided to you. It was explained. Genes are passive and don’t do anything until directed by intelligent physiology.

    “You’re very retarded to think if I will stop to write whatever I want just because u said to me to do it.”

    You can write 50000 words to me, I won’t read all of it and I won’t respond to all of it, it’s just a waste of your time. I am no longer responding to any of your inane bullshit that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand (re your stupid ‘you only memorize’ things. You don’t know shit about what I’m talking about so that’s your fallback).

    “I hope you stop to call me to”debate”, “debate”, because it’s really make me waste my time trying to correct your retarded vagueness and it’s truly irritating to do.”

    You don’t understand physiology so there will be no ‘correcting’ going on.

    “Behaviors of beings come from their organic roots.”

    Behaviors occur due to environmental stimulus.

    “At priori it’s look OBVIOUS thing to do, ;), leave that job for physiologists, but as I said above, behavior and its patterns can be mostly detectable and understandable at naked eyes at least their descriptions and stereotypicalities. The problem for psychologists or better, for scientists on psychology is not that this stuff is not your department, indeed it is too, but they tend to fool themselves as you.”

    No it’s literally not their field. Psychologists have physics envy, especially with the general factor as it’s one of the only replicable psychological variables. Sorry that you speak about things that you’re ignorant about. As I said, that makes you look really ‘intelligent’. =^)

    “No delayed, again, behavior is mostly or centrally a psychological phenomenon or a organic expression/ expression of organism. I don’t need to know what is sadness only if I search for their organic roots. I even don’t need do it to understand the mechanisms that predispose people to become sad, from very short term to depression. Indeed most of science is paradoxically futile at philosophical eyes or at least my eyes, because even seems quite interesting to understand the deep and organic mechanism of behavior it’s doesn’t mean it is absolutely necessary.”

    Behavior occurs due to environmental stimuli than hormones which dictate behavior. Learn to physiology. Most of science is futile? Uneducated and biased Santoculto is saying that most of science is futile? That’s hilarious.

    “You’re talking about “physiologists” but neuroscientists already do this task isn’t?”

    Why is ‘physiologists’ in quotes? Is it not a real discipline? It’s a hell of a lot more respected than psychology and, let me tell you, not just any moron can apply for and get a phsyiology degree like they can a psychology degree.

    Even then, it’d still be a phsyiological trait.

    Do physiologists rank traits? Yes or no, simple question. If the general factor is physiological, and if physiologists studied it, it would not be put into a rank order:

    In sum, no physiologist would suggest the following:

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

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

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

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

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

    The heritability of BMR is between .4 and .8. Can you imagine a physiologist praising a higher level as ‘better’ than another? How about stroke volume?

    If you don’t understand this now, then you’re really a special person.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    DEUS DO CÉU!!! Diós del jiéllo!!

    No. You ignored my statement. Are we selected for possible future environments, or past environments? I see you cannot answer direct questions.
     
    I don't derstand...

    enlight me!!!

    ''direct'' for you is the same to ''crude''.

    Bad-formuled question, as expected from you...

    hum**

    First, WE are not selected for nothing, because we already are products of prior selective processes. We are the past stubbornly repeating ad nauseabundchsleague...

    We only want keep our own circular personal phenotypical system to product new invariably imperfect copies of ourselves.


    You don’t understand a lot of things which is why you should stop talking.
     
    As a histerical little girl...

    Right. I never claimed to ‘be an expert’ there. I have stated my creds here a few times. That’s more than good enough.
     
    You don't need claim nothing...

    your actions talk loudly than any clear and or repetitive claim of expertise.


    …This is how I know you don’t read articles provided to you. It was explained. Genes are passive and don’t do anything until directed by intelligent physiology.
     
    You're hanging yourself.

    You can write 50000 words to me, I won’t read all of it and I won’t respond to all of it, it’s just a waste of your time. I am no longer responding to any of your inane bullshit that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand (re your stupid ‘you only memorize’ things. You don’t know shit about what I’m talking about so that’s your fallback).
     
    A cholerical trainer... it's bad for health...

    I hope any of your academic ''friends'' are following this ''debate''.

    Truthurtz#


    You don’t understand physiology so there will be no ‘correcting’ going on.
     
    It's more deeper than know physiology, it's about basal intellectual skills you no have.

    Even to RATIONALIZE, what most smartier people usually do you seems is not capable...

    , @Santoculto

    Behaviors occur due to environmental stimulus.
     
    Captain Obvious attack again.

    No it’s literally not their field. Psychologists have physics envy, especially with the general factor as it’s one of the only replicable psychological variables. Sorry that you speak about things that you’re ignorant about. As I said, that makes you look really ‘intelligent’. =^)
     
    DERSTAND NOTHING what i said, NOTHING....

    Really smart people must NO HAVE mercy with demented types as our fraund Personal Guido here...


    Behavior occurs due to environmental stimuli than hormones which dictate behavior. Learn to physiology. Most of science is futile? Uneducated and biased Santoculto is saying that most of science is futile? That’s hilarious.
     
    DERSTAND NOTHING or AS A CHILD, HE CAN'T ACCEPT...

    I have by paternal lineages a very lusitanian family and they tend to look like our mezziogorno bambino: EXTREMELY stubborn; they think they are polymaths... it's a southern european thing, seems.

    In this interesting futility of science, yes, i'm right AGAIN.

    Again, we can have 100% of certainty about some if not most of behaviors without neuroscience or ''physiology''.

    Detect the phenomenon, describe it, catalogue it, look for their patterns, if it have patterns or stereotypicalities, search for their macro- or nake-eyed causes....

    To know the name of hormones that are responsible for this or for other behavior, in the very concrete and hyper-realistic perspective, IS futile.

    The most important of all is to know to recognize them and to know the macro-mechanisms that made them, literally.

    Evolution ''theory'' is a good example of it.

    I don't need to know that there is a testosterone that differentiate men and women, at priori, if i can perceive many salient differences between them.

    It's a kind of recreational utility. It's can be useful but there are other ways to do things without this excess of informations.

    Macro-events or big pictures when very well understood make this minimal details futile, less to discover things that are really at microscopical perspective, this futility become evidently less futile.

    , @Santoculto
    ''Factor g'' as well anything that are PSYCHOLOGICAL


    ALSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


    are physiological.....



    ALSOOOOOOOOOOOO

    ALSOOOOOOOOOOOO

    ALSOOOOOOOOOOOO


    You don't understand simplest [or maybe, more nuanced] things, why do you think you will be fully capable to understand the most complex**

    More concrete and more abstract minds.

    My mind is more concrete than abstract, specially about things i really can internalize and treat as a natural information to me. So i need translate usually via metaphors what i'm not fully eqquiped to internalize... what a expert on genetics have huge facility to do.

    You believe you have a [more] abstract mind, but not...

    Repeating: write short sentences with abstract information don't mean you know what it's mean.

    More knowledge you have about something, more easy for you to articulate it, something you never show... period.
  123. @RaceRealist88
    "Amerindians love to do not-so-active activities or tasks. Most humans are not workaholics and love have that time of inactiveness."

    No. You ignored my statement. Are we selected for possible future environments, or past environments? I see you cannot answer direct questions.

    "I don’t understand the question."

    You don't understand a lot of things which is why you should stop talking.

    "Know what genes to do with body (basically everything?? Or almost everything?) is one thing. All the time play as a geneticist is other thing. (genes are slaves blablabla… even as metaphor, it’s something difficult to grasp easily for non-real-experts)."

    Right. I never claimed to 'be an expert' there. I have stated my creds here a few times. That's more than good enough.

    "This explain why you don’t understand abstractions but pretend to know. Your sentence about “genes are not slaves” show how deep is your misunderstanding about this matter and yes, that you think write vague and repetitive sentences is enough. Why genes are not directly responsible for the development of organism?? Hum?"

    ...This is how I know you don't read articles provided to you. It was explained. Genes are passive and don't do anything until directed by intelligent physiology.

    "You’re very retarded to think if I will stop to write whatever I want just because u said to me to do it."

    You can write 50000 words to me, I won't read all of it and I won't respond to all of it, it's just a waste of your time. I am no longer responding to any of your inane bullshit that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand (re your stupid 'you only memorize' things. You don't know shit about what I'm talking about so that's your fallback).

    "I hope you stop to call me to”debate”, “debate”, because it’s really make me waste my time trying to correct your retarded vagueness and it’s truly irritating to do."

    You don't understand physiology so there will be no 'correcting' going on.

    "Behaviors of beings come from their organic roots."

    Behaviors occur due to environmental stimulus.

    "At priori it’s look OBVIOUS thing to do, ;), leave that job for physiologists, but as I said above, behavior and its patterns can be mostly detectable and understandable at naked eyes at least their descriptions and stereotypicalities. The problem for psychologists or better, for scientists on psychology is not that this stuff is not your department, indeed it is too, but they tend to fool themselves as you."

    No it's literally not their field. Psychologists have physics envy, especially with the general factor as it's one of the only replicable psychological variables. Sorry that you speak about things that you're ignorant about. As I said, that makes you look really 'intelligent'. =^)

    "No delayed, again, behavior is mostly or centrally a psychological phenomenon or a organic expression/ expression of organism. I don’t need to know what is sadness only if I search for their organic roots. I even don’t need do it to understand the mechanisms that predispose people to become sad, from very short term to depression. Indeed most of science is paradoxically futile at philosophical eyes or at least my eyes, because even seems quite interesting to understand the deep and organic mechanism of behavior it’s doesn’t mean it is absolutely necessary."

    Behavior occurs due to environmental stimuli than hormones which dictate behavior. Learn to physiology. Most of science is futile? Uneducated and biased Santoculto is saying that most of science is futile? That's hilarious.

    "You’re talking about “physiologists” but neuroscientists already do this task isn’t?"

    Why is 'physiologists' in quotes? Is it not a real discipline? It's a hell of a lot more respected than psychology and, let me tell you, not just any moron can apply for and get a phsyiology degree like they can a psychology degree.

    Even then, it'd still be a phsyiological trait.

    Do physiologists rank traits? Yes or no, simple question. If the general factor is physiological, and if physiologists studied it, it would not be put into a rank order:

    In sum, no physiologist would suggest the following:

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

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

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

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

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

    The heritability of BMR is between .4 and .8. Can you imagine a physiologist praising a higher level as 'better' than another? How about stroke volume?

    If you don't understand this now, then you're really a special person.

    DEUS DO CÉU!!! Diós del jiéllo!!

    No. You ignored my statement. Are we selected for possible future environments, or past environments? I see you cannot answer direct questions.

    I don’t derstand…

    enlight me!!!

    ”direct” for you is the same to ”crude”.

    Bad-formuled question, as expected from you…

    hum**

    First, WE are not selected for nothing, because we already are products of prior selective processes. We are the past stubbornly repeating ad nauseabundchsleague…

    We only want keep our own circular personal phenotypical system to product new invariably imperfect copies of ourselves.

    You don’t understand a lot of things which is why you should stop talking.

    As a histerical little girl…

    Right. I never claimed to ‘be an expert’ there. I have stated my creds here a few times. That’s more than good enough.

    You don’t need claim nothing…

    your actions talk loudly than any clear and or repetitive claim of expertise.

    …This is how I know you don’t read articles provided to you. It was explained. Genes are passive and don’t do anything until directed by intelligent physiology.

    You’re hanging yourself.

    You can write 50000 words to me, I won’t read all of it and I won’t respond to all of it, it’s just a waste of your time. I am no longer responding to any of your inane bullshit that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand (re your stupid ‘you only memorize’ things. You don’t know shit about what I’m talking about so that’s your fallback).

    A cholerical trainer… it’s bad for health…

    I hope any of your academic ”friends” are following this ”debate”.

    Truthurtz#

    You don’t understand physiology so there will be no ‘correcting’ going on.

    It’s more deeper than know physiology, it’s about basal intellectual skills you no have.

    Even to RATIONALIZE, what most smartier people usually do you seems is not capable…

    Read More
  124. @RaceRealist88
    "Amerindians love to do not-so-active activities or tasks. Most humans are not workaholics and love have that time of inactiveness."

    No. You ignored my statement. Are we selected for possible future environments, or past environments? I see you cannot answer direct questions.

    "I don’t understand the question."

    You don't understand a lot of things which is why you should stop talking.

    "Know what genes to do with body (basically everything?? Or almost everything?) is one thing. All the time play as a geneticist is other thing. (genes are slaves blablabla… even as metaphor, it’s something difficult to grasp easily for non-real-experts)."

    Right. I never claimed to 'be an expert' there. I have stated my creds here a few times. That's more than good enough.

    "This explain why you don’t understand abstractions but pretend to know. Your sentence about “genes are not slaves” show how deep is your misunderstanding about this matter and yes, that you think write vague and repetitive sentences is enough. Why genes are not directly responsible for the development of organism?? Hum?"

    ...This is how I know you don't read articles provided to you. It was explained. Genes are passive and don't do anything until directed by intelligent physiology.

    "You’re very retarded to think if I will stop to write whatever I want just because u said to me to do it."

    You can write 50000 words to me, I won't read all of it and I won't respond to all of it, it's just a waste of your time. I am no longer responding to any of your inane bullshit that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand (re your stupid 'you only memorize' things. You don't know shit about what I'm talking about so that's your fallback).

    "I hope you stop to call me to”debate”, “debate”, because it’s really make me waste my time trying to correct your retarded vagueness and it’s truly irritating to do."

    You don't understand physiology so there will be no 'correcting' going on.

    "Behaviors of beings come from their organic roots."

    Behaviors occur due to environmental stimulus.

    "At priori it’s look OBVIOUS thing to do, ;), leave that job for physiologists, but as I said above, behavior and its patterns can be mostly detectable and understandable at naked eyes at least their descriptions and stereotypicalities. The problem for psychologists or better, for scientists on psychology is not that this stuff is not your department, indeed it is too, but they tend to fool themselves as you."

    No it's literally not their field. Psychologists have physics envy, especially with the general factor as it's one of the only replicable psychological variables. Sorry that you speak about things that you're ignorant about. As I said, that makes you look really 'intelligent'. =^)

    "No delayed, again, behavior is mostly or centrally a psychological phenomenon or a organic expression/ expression of organism. I don’t need to know what is sadness only if I search for their organic roots. I even don’t need do it to understand the mechanisms that predispose people to become sad, from very short term to depression. Indeed most of science is paradoxically futile at philosophical eyes or at least my eyes, because even seems quite interesting to understand the deep and organic mechanism of behavior it’s doesn’t mean it is absolutely necessary."

    Behavior occurs due to environmental stimuli than hormones which dictate behavior. Learn to physiology. Most of science is futile? Uneducated and biased Santoculto is saying that most of science is futile? That's hilarious.

    "You’re talking about “physiologists” but neuroscientists already do this task isn’t?"

    Why is 'physiologists' in quotes? Is it not a real discipline? It's a hell of a lot more respected than psychology and, let me tell you, not just any moron can apply for and get a phsyiology degree like they can a psychology degree.

    Even then, it'd still be a phsyiological trait.

    Do physiologists rank traits? Yes or no, simple question. If the general factor is physiological, and if physiologists studied it, it would not be put into a rank order:

    In sum, no physiologist would suggest the following:

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

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

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

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

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

    The heritability of BMR is between .4 and .8. Can you imagine a physiologist praising a higher level as 'better' than another? How about stroke volume?

    If you don't understand this now, then you're really a special person.

    Behaviors occur due to environmental stimulus.

    Captain Obvious attack again.

    No it’s literally not their field. Psychologists have physics envy, especially with the general factor as it’s one of the only replicable psychological variables. Sorry that you speak about things that you’re ignorant about. As I said, that makes you look really ‘intelligent’. =^)

    DERSTAND NOTHING what i said, NOTHING….

    Really smart people must NO HAVE mercy with demented types as our fraund Personal Guido here…

    Behavior occurs due to environmental stimuli than hormones which dictate behavior. Learn to physiology. Most of science is futile? Uneducated and biased Santoculto is saying that most of science is futile? That’s hilarious.

    DERSTAND NOTHING or AS A CHILD, HE CAN’T ACCEPT…

    I have by paternal lineages a very lusitanian family and they tend to look like our mezziogorno bambino: EXTREMELY stubborn; they think they are polymaths… it’s a southern european thing, seems.

    In this interesting futility of science, yes, i’m right AGAIN.

    Again, we can have 100% of certainty about some if not most of behaviors without neuroscience or ”physiology”.

    Detect the phenomenon, describe it, catalogue it, look for their patterns, if it have patterns or stereotypicalities, search for their macro- or nake-eyed causes….

    To know the name of hormones that are responsible for this or for other behavior, in the very concrete and hyper-realistic perspective, IS futile.

    The most important of all is to know to recognize them and to know the macro-mechanisms that made them, literally.

    Evolution ”theory” is a good example of it.

    I don’t need to know that there is a testosterone that differentiate men and women, at priori, if i can perceive many salient differences between them.

    It’s a kind of recreational utility. It’s can be useful but there are other ways to do things without this excess of informations.

    Macro-events or big pictures when very well understood make this minimal details futile, less to discover things that are really at microscopical perspective, this futility become evidently less futile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "First, WE are not selected for nothing, because we already are products of prior selective processes. We are the past stubbornly repeating ad nauseabundchsleague…"

    Yes we literally are. We are selected for past environments. Read any evo psychologists. That's what they'll say in regards to the mind and the same is true for the body. You don't know shit about the human body, you're clueless.

    "You don’t need claim nothing…

    your actions talk loudly than any clear and or repetitive claim of expertise."

    Me: education in what we're talking about.

    You: uneducated and biased in what we're talking about. That's why this conversation is going like this, because you don't know shit about these fields.

    "You’re hanging yourself."

    No I am not. You're not addressing anything I'm writing, waving it away and then going to your inane autistic ramblings. It's pretty annoying to see you think that 'you have me' when you write 300 words and literally say nothing of note.

    "It’s more deeper than know physiology, it’s about basal intellectual skills you no have.

    Even to RATIONALIZE, what most smartier people usually do you seems is not capable…"

    It's 'deeper' than physiology when you 'think' you are more 'rational' than I am (which is not true). You can only say muh memorization (you idiot, what do you think most stuff is?) or muh rationalization, yet without a damn understanding of the field how can you rationalize anything on the subject!

    Nice job dodging the quote I provided. =^)

    "DERSTAND NOTHING what i said, NOTHING….

    Really smart people must NO HAVE mercy with demented types as our fraund Personal Guido here…"

    More inane ramblings... Why do your comments get published here? Who is really smart? Not you. You don't know shit about life sciences. Keep with your logical fallacies buddy. You can't have an intellectual conversation without your dumb attacks because it makes you feel better about your shit life as a mullato in Brazil.

    "Again, we can have 100% of certainty about some if not most of behaviors without neuroscience or ”physiology”."

    Shut the fuck up if you're not going to educate yourself on the basics of physiology. You can say 'we can be certain of this or that without that or this' but it's just baseless bloviating and it makes you look so so dumb.

    "Evolution ”theory” is a good example of it."

    Why is 'theory' in quotes? Are you one of those 'evolution is only a theory' people? Keep showing your (non) education!
  125. @RaceRealist88
    "Amerindians love to do not-so-active activities or tasks. Most humans are not workaholics and love have that time of inactiveness."

    No. You ignored my statement. Are we selected for possible future environments, or past environments? I see you cannot answer direct questions.

    "I don’t understand the question."

    You don't understand a lot of things which is why you should stop talking.

    "Know what genes to do with body (basically everything?? Or almost everything?) is one thing. All the time play as a geneticist is other thing. (genes are slaves blablabla… even as metaphor, it’s something difficult to grasp easily for non-real-experts)."

    Right. I never claimed to 'be an expert' there. I have stated my creds here a few times. That's more than good enough.

    "This explain why you don’t understand abstractions but pretend to know. Your sentence about “genes are not slaves” show how deep is your misunderstanding about this matter and yes, that you think write vague and repetitive sentences is enough. Why genes are not directly responsible for the development of organism?? Hum?"

    ...This is how I know you don't read articles provided to you. It was explained. Genes are passive and don't do anything until directed by intelligent physiology.

    "You’re very retarded to think if I will stop to write whatever I want just because u said to me to do it."

    You can write 50000 words to me, I won't read all of it and I won't respond to all of it, it's just a waste of your time. I am no longer responding to any of your inane bullshit that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand (re your stupid 'you only memorize' things. You don't know shit about what I'm talking about so that's your fallback).

    "I hope you stop to call me to”debate”, “debate”, because it’s really make me waste my time trying to correct your retarded vagueness and it’s truly irritating to do."

    You don't understand physiology so there will be no 'correcting' going on.

    "Behaviors of beings come from their organic roots."

    Behaviors occur due to environmental stimulus.

    "At priori it’s look OBVIOUS thing to do, ;), leave that job for physiologists, but as I said above, behavior and its patterns can be mostly detectable and understandable at naked eyes at least their descriptions and stereotypicalities. The problem for psychologists or better, for scientists on psychology is not that this stuff is not your department, indeed it is too, but they tend to fool themselves as you."

    No it's literally not their field. Psychologists have physics envy, especially with the general factor as it's one of the only replicable psychological variables. Sorry that you speak about things that you're ignorant about. As I said, that makes you look really 'intelligent'. =^)

    "No delayed, again, behavior is mostly or centrally a psychological phenomenon or a organic expression/ expression of organism. I don’t need to know what is sadness only if I search for their organic roots. I even don’t need do it to understand the mechanisms that predispose people to become sad, from very short term to depression. Indeed most of science is paradoxically futile at philosophical eyes or at least my eyes, because even seems quite interesting to understand the deep and organic mechanism of behavior it’s doesn’t mean it is absolutely necessary."

    Behavior occurs due to environmental stimuli than hormones which dictate behavior. Learn to physiology. Most of science is futile? Uneducated and biased Santoculto is saying that most of science is futile? That's hilarious.

    "You’re talking about “physiologists” but neuroscientists already do this task isn’t?"

    Why is 'physiologists' in quotes? Is it not a real discipline? It's a hell of a lot more respected than psychology and, let me tell you, not just any moron can apply for and get a phsyiology degree like they can a psychology degree.

    Even then, it'd still be a phsyiological trait.

    Do physiologists rank traits? Yes or no, simple question. If the general factor is physiological, and if physiologists studied it, it would not be put into a rank order:

    In sum, no physiologist would suggest the following:

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

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

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

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

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

    The heritability of BMR is between .4 and .8. Can you imagine a physiologist praising a higher level as 'better' than another? How about stroke volume?

    If you don't understand this now, then you're really a special person.

    ”Factor g” as well anything that are PSYCHOLOGICAL

    ALSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    are physiological…..

    ALSOOOOOOOOOOOO

    ALSOOOOOOOOOOOO

    ALSOOOOOOOOOOOO

    You don’t understand simplest [or maybe, more nuanced] things, why do you think you will be fully capable to understand the most complex**

    More concrete and more abstract minds.

    My mind is more concrete than abstract, specially about things i really can internalize and treat as a natural information to me. So i need translate usually via metaphors what i’m not fully eqquiped to internalize… what a expert on genetics have huge facility to do.

    You believe you have a [more] abstract mind, but not…

    Repeating: write short sentences with abstract information don’t mean you know what it’s mean.

    More knowledge you have about something, more easy for you to articulate it, something you never show… period.

    Read More
  126. @Santoculto
    DEUS DO CÉU!!! Diós del jiéllo!!

    No. You ignored my statement. Are we selected for possible future environments, or past environments? I see you cannot answer direct questions.
     
    I don't derstand...

    enlight me!!!

    ''direct'' for you is the same to ''crude''.

    Bad-formuled question, as expected from you...

    hum**

    First, WE are not selected for nothing, because we already are products of prior selective processes. We are the past stubbornly repeating ad nauseabundchsleague...

    We only want keep our own circular personal phenotypical system to product new invariably imperfect copies of ourselves.


    You don’t understand a lot of things which is why you should stop talking.
     
    As a histerical little girl...

    Right. I never claimed to ‘be an expert’ there. I have stated my creds here a few times. That’s more than good enough.
     
    You don't need claim nothing...

    your actions talk loudly than any clear and or repetitive claim of expertise.


    …This is how I know you don’t read articles provided to you. It was explained. Genes are passive and don’t do anything until directed by intelligent physiology.
     
    You're hanging yourself.

    You can write 50000 words to me, I won’t read all of it and I won’t respond to all of it, it’s just a waste of your time. I am no longer responding to any of your inane bullshit that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand (re your stupid ‘you only memorize’ things. You don’t know shit about what I’m talking about so that’s your fallback).
     
    A cholerical trainer... it's bad for health...

    I hope any of your academic ''friends'' are following this ''debate''.

    Truthurtz#


    You don’t understand physiology so there will be no ‘correcting’ going on.
     
    It's more deeper than know physiology, it's about basal intellectual skills you no have.

    Even to RATIONALIZE, what most smartier people usually do you seems is not capable...

    selected for nothing, oops, something

    Read More
  127. @Santoculto

    Behaviors occur due to environmental stimulus.
     
    Captain Obvious attack again.

    No it’s literally not their field. Psychologists have physics envy, especially with the general factor as it’s one of the only replicable psychological variables. Sorry that you speak about things that you’re ignorant about. As I said, that makes you look really ‘intelligent’. =^)
     
    DERSTAND NOTHING what i said, NOTHING....

    Really smart people must NO HAVE mercy with demented types as our fraund Personal Guido here...


    Behavior occurs due to environmental stimuli than hormones which dictate behavior. Learn to physiology. Most of science is futile? Uneducated and biased Santoculto is saying that most of science is futile? That’s hilarious.
     
    DERSTAND NOTHING or AS A CHILD, HE CAN'T ACCEPT...

    I have by paternal lineages a very lusitanian family and they tend to look like our mezziogorno bambino: EXTREMELY stubborn; they think they are polymaths... it's a southern european thing, seems.

    In this interesting futility of science, yes, i'm right AGAIN.

    Again, we can have 100% of certainty about some if not most of behaviors without neuroscience or ''physiology''.

    Detect the phenomenon, describe it, catalogue it, look for their patterns, if it have patterns or stereotypicalities, search for their macro- or nake-eyed causes....

    To know the name of hormones that are responsible for this or for other behavior, in the very concrete and hyper-realistic perspective, IS futile.

    The most important of all is to know to recognize them and to know the macro-mechanisms that made them, literally.

    Evolution ''theory'' is a good example of it.

    I don't need to know that there is a testosterone that differentiate men and women, at priori, if i can perceive many salient differences between them.

    It's a kind of recreational utility. It's can be useful but there are other ways to do things without this excess of informations.

    Macro-events or big pictures when very well understood make this minimal details futile, less to discover things that are really at microscopical perspective, this futility become evidently less futile.

    “First, WE are not selected for nothing, because we already are products of prior selective processes. We are the past stubbornly repeating ad nauseabundchsleague…”

    Yes we literally are. We are selected for past environments. Read any evo psychologists. That’s what they’ll say in regards to the mind and the same is true for the body. You don’t know shit about the human body, you’re clueless.

    “You don’t need claim nothing…

    your actions talk loudly than any clear and or repetitive claim of expertise.”

    Me: education in what we’re talking about.

    You: uneducated and biased in what we’re talking about. That’s why this conversation is going like this, because you don’t know shit about these fields.

    “You’re hanging yourself.”

    No I am not. You’re not addressing anything I’m writing, waving it away and then going to your inane autistic ramblings. It’s pretty annoying to see you think that ‘you have me’ when you write 300 words and literally say nothing of note.

    “It’s more deeper than know physiology, it’s about basal intellectual skills you no have.

    Even to RATIONALIZE, what most smartier people usually do you seems is not capable…”

    It’s ‘deeper’ than physiology when you ‘think’ you are more ‘rational’ than I am (which is not true). You can only say muh memorization (you idiot, what do you think most stuff is?) or muh rationalization, yet without a damn understanding of the field how can you rationalize anything on the subject!

    Nice job dodging the quote I provided. =^)

    “DERSTAND NOTHING what i said, NOTHING….

    Really smart people must NO HAVE mercy with demented types as our fraund Personal Guido here…”

    More inane ramblings… Why do your comments get published here? Who is really smart? Not you. You don’t know shit about life sciences. Keep with your logical fallacies buddy. You can’t have an intellectual conversation without your dumb attacks because it makes you feel better about your shit life as a mullato in Brazil.

    “Again, we can have 100% of certainty about some if not most of behaviors without neuroscience or ”physiology”.”

    Shut the fuck up if you’re not going to educate yourself on the basics of physiology. You can say ‘we can be certain of this or that without that or this’ but it’s just baseless bloviating and it makes you look so so dumb.

    “Evolution ”theory” is a good example of it.”

    Why is ‘theory’ in quotes? Are you one of those ‘evolution is only a theory’ people? Keep showing your (non) education!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto

    Yes we literally are. We are selected for past environments. Read any evo psychologists. That’s what they’ll say in regards to the mind and the same is true for the body. You don’t know shit about the human body, you’re clueless.
     
    My philosophical approach is unreachable for your simpleton mindset.

    It's too subtle for a avg personal trainer understand, sad.

    ''We are not selected'', we already are. For past environments* For sure, if ''past'' is the same to ''refference''. Without prior guidelines selective process don't happen.

    Other usual problems we can find on clever sillies as Personal Guido here is: they usually neglect the real meaning and correct application of words, and because this they tend to fall in love for poorly concretized narratives.

    examples:

    ''Honor culture CAUSE black or under-class violence''

    ''Genes are slaves so genetic determinism is dumb''

    They love short and abstractized sentences.

    They may can deceive many people, not all, ;)

  128. @RaceRealist88
    "First, WE are not selected for nothing, because we already are products of prior selective processes. We are the past stubbornly repeating ad nauseabundchsleague…"

    Yes we literally are. We are selected for past environments. Read any evo psychologists. That's what they'll say in regards to the mind and the same is true for the body. You don't know shit about the human body, you're clueless.

    "You don’t need claim nothing…

    your actions talk loudly than any clear and or repetitive claim of expertise."

    Me: education in what we're talking about.

    You: uneducated and biased in what we're talking about. That's why this conversation is going like this, because you don't know shit about these fields.

    "You’re hanging yourself."

    No I am not. You're not addressing anything I'm writing, waving it away and then going to your inane autistic ramblings. It's pretty annoying to see you think that 'you have me' when you write 300 words and literally say nothing of note.

    "It’s more deeper than know physiology, it’s about basal intellectual skills you no have.

    Even to RATIONALIZE, what most smartier people usually do you seems is not capable…"

    It's 'deeper' than physiology when you 'think' you are more 'rational' than I am (which is not true). You can only say muh memorization (you idiot, what do you think most stuff is?) or muh rationalization, yet without a damn understanding of the field how can you rationalize anything on the subject!

    Nice job dodging the quote I provided. =^)

    "DERSTAND NOTHING what i said, NOTHING….

    Really smart people must NO HAVE mercy with demented types as our fraund Personal Guido here…"

    More inane ramblings... Why do your comments get published here? Who is really smart? Not you. You don't know shit about life sciences. Keep with your logical fallacies buddy. You can't have an intellectual conversation without your dumb attacks because it makes you feel better about your shit life as a mullato in Brazil.

    "Again, we can have 100% of certainty about some if not most of behaviors without neuroscience or ”physiology”."

    Shut the fuck up if you're not going to educate yourself on the basics of physiology. You can say 'we can be certain of this or that without that or this' but it's just baseless bloviating and it makes you look so so dumb.

    "Evolution ”theory” is a good example of it."

    Why is 'theory' in quotes? Are you one of those 'evolution is only a theory' people? Keep showing your (non) education!

    Yes we literally are. We are selected for past environments. Read any evo psychologists. That’s what they’ll say in regards to the mind and the same is true for the body. You don’t know shit about the human body, you’re clueless.

    My philosophical approach is unreachable for your simpleton mindset.

    It’s too subtle for a avg personal trainer understand, sad.

    ”We are not selected”, we already are. For past environments* For sure, if ”past” is the same to ”refference”. Without prior guidelines selective process don’t happen.

    Other usual problems we can find on clever sillies as Personal Guido here is: they usually neglect the real meaning and correct application of words, and because this they tend to fall in love for poorly concretized narratives.

    examples:

    ”Honor culture CAUSE black or under-class violence”

    ”Genes are slaves so genetic determinism is dumb”

    They love short and abstractized sentences.

    They may can deceive many people, not all, ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Where is it if it's physiological? Would phsyiologists rank the trait if they studied it? You still have yet to answer the questions. You cannot answer direct questions, you can only go on unrelated autistic tangents.

    "My philosophical approach is unreachable for your simpleton mindset."

    lol sure thing buddy. you're too dumb and ignorant to respond to what I say so you say your 'philosophical approach' is 'unreachable' for me. You don't have an 'approach', diarrhea just spews out of your fingers.

    "For sure, if ”past” is the same to ”refference”. Without prior guidelines selective process don’t happen."

    "Past" is the environment that we evolved in, say 10kya. I already explained this. You don't get it though because you're so hellbent on 'arguing' your stupid 'points'.

    "because this they tend to fall in love for poorly concretized narratives.

    ”Honor culture CAUSE black or under-class violence”"

    It does. You're clueless about what testosterone does in the body so why are y0u talking about it? You could not address my argument on PP's blog, so why are you bringing this up?

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

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

    You said your 'philosophical approach is unreachable' for my mindset. Well, Mr. Philosopher, there are two arguments above. Choose one P or C and explain how and why it is wrong with references. If you cannot do so you must concede the argument. That's how this works.

    I know you're just going to ramble on and on about unrelated bullshit, thusly proving my point.

    Talk about whatever other inane garbage you want, choose a premise or conclusion and explain how and why it is wrong with references or don't respond at all.

    "”Genes are slaves so genetic determinism is dumb”"

    This is true. The environmental structure dictates gene transcription, and every transcription becomes a new genetic environment. DNA is not a cause in the active sense, it is passive. You're literally clueless here when talking about science. Go and 'philosophize' (how can you do that when you don't even know elementary logic?) somewhere else. The genes respond to what occurs in the environment, this is AKA intelligent development, which may also drive the evolution of species.

    If you won't stop with your same old inane bullshit don't respond. If you won't respond to my two arguments and choosing P1, P2, P3, or a conclusion and explain how and why I am wrong along with providing references don't respond. If you're going to spew the same shit about physiology and genes even after I have described it to you numerous times (and given you links to) don't respond.

    You think you have a lot to say but it's just mindless and inane drivel. Educate yourself because you look extremely ignorant.

  129. @Santoculto

    Yes we literally are. We are selected for past environments. Read any evo psychologists. That’s what they’ll say in regards to the mind and the same is true for the body. You don’t know shit about the human body, you’re clueless.
     
    My philosophical approach is unreachable for your simpleton mindset.

    It's too subtle for a avg personal trainer understand, sad.

    ''We are not selected'', we already are. For past environments* For sure, if ''past'' is the same to ''refference''. Without prior guidelines selective process don't happen.

    Other usual problems we can find on clever sillies as Personal Guido here is: they usually neglect the real meaning and correct application of words, and because this they tend to fall in love for poorly concretized narratives.

    examples:

    ''Honor culture CAUSE black or under-class violence''

    ''Genes are slaves so genetic determinism is dumb''

    They love short and abstractized sentences.

    They may can deceive many people, not all, ;)

    Where is it if it’s physiological? Would phsyiologists rank the trait if they studied it? You still have yet to answer the questions. You cannot answer direct questions, you can only go on unrelated autistic tangents.

    “My philosophical approach is unreachable for your simpleton mindset.”

    lol sure thing buddy. you’re too dumb and ignorant to respond to what I say so you say your ‘philosophical approach’ is ‘unreachable’ for me. You don’t have an ‘approach’, diarrhea just spews out of your fingers.

    “For sure, if ”past” is the same to ”refference”. Without prior guidelines selective process don’t happen.”

    “Past” is the environment that we evolved in, say 10kya. I already explained this. You don’t get it though because you’re so hellbent on ‘arguing’ your stupid ‘points’.

    “because this they tend to fall in love for poorly concretized narratives.

    ”Honor culture CAUSE black or under-class violence””

    It does. You’re clueless about what testosterone does in the body so why are y0u talking about it? You could not address my argument on PP’s blog, so why are you bringing this up?

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

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

    You said your ‘philosophical approach is unreachable’ for my mindset. Well, Mr. Philosopher, there are two arguments above. Choose one P or C and explain how and why it is wrong with references. If you cannot do so you must concede the argument. That’s how this works.

    I know you’re just going to ramble on and on about unrelated bullshit, thusly proving my point.

    Talk about whatever other inane garbage you want, choose a premise or conclusion and explain how and why it is wrong with references or don’t respond at all.

    “”Genes are slaves so genetic determinism is dumb””

    This is true. The environmental structure dictates gene transcription, and every transcription becomes a new genetic environment. DNA is not a cause in the active sense, it is passive. You’re literally clueless here when talking about science. Go and ‘philosophize’ (how can you do that when you don’t even know elementary logic?) somewhere else. The genes respond to what occurs in the environment, this is AKA intelligent development, which may also drive the evolution of species.

    If you won’t stop with your same old inane bullshit don’t respond. If you won’t respond to my two arguments and choosing P1, P2, P3, or a conclusion and explain how and why I am wrong along with providing references don’t respond. If you’re going to spew the same shit about physiology and genes even after I have described it to you numerous times (and given you links to) don’t respond.

    You think you have a lot to say but it’s just mindless and inane drivel. Educate yourself because you look extremely ignorant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Santoculto
    [Too much content-free insulting, presented in poor English grammar.]
  130. @RaceRealist88
    Where is it if it's physiological? Would phsyiologists rank the trait if they studied it? You still have yet to answer the questions. You cannot answer direct questions, you can only go on unrelated autistic tangents.

    "My philosophical approach is unreachable for your simpleton mindset."

    lol sure thing buddy. you're too dumb and ignorant to respond to what I say so you say your 'philosophical approach' is 'unreachable' for me. You don't have an 'approach', diarrhea just spews out of your fingers.

    "For sure, if ”past” is the same to ”refference”. Without prior guidelines selective process don’t happen."

    "Past" is the environment that we evolved in, say 10kya. I already explained this. You don't get it though because you're so hellbent on 'arguing' your stupid 'points'.

    "because this they tend to fall in love for poorly concretized narratives.

    ”Honor culture CAUSE black or under-class violence”"

    It does. You're clueless about what testosterone does in the body so why are y0u talking about it? You could not address my argument on PP's blog, so why are you bringing this up?

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

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

    You said your 'philosophical approach is unreachable' for my mindset. Well, Mr. Philosopher, there are two arguments above. Choose one P or C and explain how and why it is wrong with references. If you cannot do so you must concede the argument. That's how this works.

    I know you're just going to ramble on and on about unrelated bullshit, thusly proving my point.

    Talk about whatever other inane garbage you want, choose a premise or conclusion and explain how and why it is wrong with references or don't respond at all.

    "”Genes are slaves so genetic determinism is dumb”"

    This is true. The environmental structure dictates gene transcription, and every transcription becomes a new genetic environment. DNA is not a cause in the active sense, it is passive. You're literally clueless here when talking about science. Go and 'philosophize' (how can you do that when you don't even know elementary logic?) somewhere else. The genes respond to what occurs in the environment, this is AKA intelligent development, which may also drive the evolution of species.

    If you won't stop with your same old inane bullshit don't respond. If you won't respond to my two arguments and choosing P1, P2, P3, or a conclusion and explain how and why I am wrong along with providing references don't respond. If you're going to spew the same shit about physiology and genes even after I have described it to you numerous times (and given you links to) don't respond.

    You think you have a lot to say but it's just mindless and inane drivel. Educate yourself because you look extremely ignorant.

    [Too much content-free insulting, presented in poor English grammar.]

    Read More
  131. The idea someone earlier gave, a comparison of compositions written by persons with IQ 100, 120, and 140, would be be really interesting. Of course it would take quite a few examples to draw any conclusions. To make it really entertaining, include some IQ 80 and 180. The essays would, of course, have to be in the person’s native language, or at least the language used in the IQ test they took. Subject matter would be important I guess. That’s the hard–what to have everybody write about? Anyway, once they are done, ask others without an IQ agenda to comment on them. Linda Gottfredson has such concrete data on her website, but not an essay/IQ evaluation to my knowledge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    I can readily imagine a "pop intelligence/pop IQ" sub-genre tucked within larger categories, such as pop psychology, college prep, child-rearing, self-improvement, and the like. I'm not sure if such a category already exists.

    I'm thinking a "pop IQ" sub-genre could offer a good opportunity for Prof. Thompson and his colleagues to popularize their work, plus, in my mind's eye at least, it could demystify and depoliticize IQ a bit.
  132. @Van Doren
    1/3333 is IQ 151-152, not 170. 170 is one from 650,000. For that they would need to find every single person with IQ that high from 800 million people. That's EU and US together.

    What is the test these people with an IQ of 170 are taking? The last IQ-like test I took was the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). I got an 800 on the verbal part and a little bit lower on the quantitative part. That is just about as high as that test goes but it is still only three standard deviations above the mean. That would correspond to an IQ of only around 145.

    I’m smart enough, but I am no where near the smartest person I have ever known. Yet I maxed out on this test. So what test are they taking? It can’t be the WAIS which I believe also has an upper limit of around 3 SDs. I took the Stanford-Binet as an undergraduate. I don’t know its upper boundary but I don’t think it goes any higher.

    I know that there are some tests given by specialty organizations for the highest IQs, but I wonder about their validity The WAIS, the GRE, the SAT and the Army tests have been given to millions. But these specialty tests have had, I think, only a handful of participants.

    Try to keep your answer simple – I’m not as smart as I would like to be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    This site gives the GRE ceiling as roughly 4SD: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/GREIQ.aspx

    This site has a comprehensive list of tests and the scores for about a 3SD (or 1 in a 1000) threshold: http://www.triplenine.org/HowtoJoin/TestScores.aspx

    Here is a site for "Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests": http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/index.html

    Some discussion of the norming of the Mega test (stated as up to 200 IQ): http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/megadata/gradynorm.html
    This page indicates they are using an SD of 16 and has an alternative calibration topping out at 185 (which sounds more realistic to me): http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/megadata/calibration.html
    Note that they don't seem to consider Mega test scores above about 170 (36 raw) that reliable.

    Anne Roe made up her own high ceiling test (math ceiling was still inadequate for the physical scientists though) for her 1952 study of eminent scientists: https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Roe.aspx

    This did not answer your original question. I am curious about that as well. I seem to recall reading that the Duke TIP study (source of high IQ cohort in this genetic study) did additional testing after an initial screen (e.g. SAT, etc.), but have not been able to find a reference.
    , @Edward
    The Stanford-Binet test, insofar as I am aware, can go up to a maximum score of 225, so they may have been tested on that.

    I know that the WISC-IV went up to a maximum of 160.
  133. @dcite
    The idea someone earlier gave, a comparison of compositions written by persons with IQ 100, 120, and 140, would be be really interesting. Of course it would take quite a few examples to draw any conclusions. To make it really entertaining, include some IQ 80 and 180. The essays would, of course, have to be in the person's native language, or at least the language used in the IQ test they took. Subject matter would be important I guess. That's the hard--what to have everybody write about? Anyway, once they are done, ask others without an IQ agenda to comment on them. Linda Gottfredson has such concrete data on her website, but not an essay/IQ evaluation to my knowledge.

    I can readily imagine a “pop intelligence/pop IQ” sub-genre tucked within larger categories, such as pop psychology, college prep, child-rearing, self-improvement, and the like. I’m not sure if such a category already exists.

    I’m thinking a “pop IQ” sub-genre could offer a good opportunity for Prof. Thompson and his colleagues to popularize their work, plus, in my mind’s eye at least, it could demystify and depoliticize IQ a bit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite
    I think those little puzzles, games, crosswords, and mini-test-your-knowledge (or logic) tests you find in publications like Readers' Digest, could have that function if they were actually turned in, evaluated, and taken seriously.
    , @res
    Hans Eysenck published some books in this area. For example: https://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Own-I-Q-Pelican/dp/0140205160
    https://www.amazon.com/Test-Your-IQ-Explanation-Including/dp/0140249621
    My understanding is that it did not go over well in the psychological community (e.g. concerns about contaminating test scoring because of answers getting out there), but perhaps Dr. Thompson or others knowledgeable in this area could comment on that.
  134. @JackOH
    I can readily imagine a "pop intelligence/pop IQ" sub-genre tucked within larger categories, such as pop psychology, college prep, child-rearing, self-improvement, and the like. I'm not sure if such a category already exists.

    I'm thinking a "pop IQ" sub-genre could offer a good opportunity for Prof. Thompson and his colleagues to popularize their work, plus, in my mind's eye at least, it could demystify and depoliticize IQ a bit.

    I think those little puzzles, games, crosswords, and mini-test-your-knowledge (or logic) tests you find in publications like Readers’ Digest, could have that function if they were actually turned in, evaluated, and taken seriously.

    Read More
  135. @Pat Boyle
    What is the test these people with an IQ of 170 are taking? The last IQ-like test I took was the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). I got an 800 on the verbal part and a little bit lower on the quantitative part. That is just about as high as that test goes but it is still only three standard deviations above the mean. That would correspond to an IQ of only around 145.

    I'm smart enough, but I am no where near the smartest person I have ever known. Yet I maxed out on this test. So what test are they taking? It can't be the WAIS which I believe also has an upper limit of around 3 SDs. I took the Stanford-Binet as an undergraduate. I don't know its upper boundary but I don't think it goes any higher.

    I know that there are some tests given by specialty organizations for the highest IQs, but I wonder about their validity The WAIS, the GRE, the SAT and the Army tests have been given to millions. But these specialty tests have had, I think, only a handful of participants.

    Try to keep your answer simple - I'm not as smart as I would like to be.

    This site gives the GRE ceiling as roughly 4SD: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/GREIQ.aspx

    This site has a comprehensive list of tests and the scores for about a 3SD (or 1 in a 1000) threshold: http://www.triplenine.org/HowtoJoin/TestScores.aspx

    Here is a site for “Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests”: http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/index.html

    Some discussion of the norming of the Mega test (stated as up to 200 IQ): http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/megadata/gradynorm.html
    This page indicates they are using an SD of 16 and has an alternative calibration topping out at 185 (which sounds more realistic to me): http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/megadata/calibration.html
    Note that they don’t seem to consider Mega test scores above about 170 (36 raw) that reliable.

    Anne Roe made up her own high ceiling test (math ceiling was still inadequate for the physical scientists though) for her 1952 study of eminent scientists: https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Roe.aspx

    This did not answer your original question. I am curious about that as well. I seem to recall reading that the Duke TIP study (source of high IQ cohort in this genetic study) did additional testing after an initial screen (e.g. SAT, etc.), but have not been able to find a reference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    I don't find your first reference very satisfactory. The GRE is designed to have a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. This author (de la Joya) chooses a mean of 1035 and an unknown SD. He seems to mix up empirical results with figures derived from the mathematical models.

    He gives figures down to IQs in the sixties. This must be theoretical I can't imagine that a mentally handicapped person with a 60 IQ has ever taken the GRE. His math seems like a hodge-podge of unconnected results. The result of all this is that he gives an IQ of about 160 for the top GRE scores. I guess I should be pleased. That would make me smarter yet.

    I looked through the high IQ test results. As I expected the N sizes are quite small. These are not common tests. It is unlikely that they have been validated by other studies. A WAIS result is backed up by hundreds of published studies that encompass literally millions of participants. None of this is possible at the extreme asymptotic end of a bell curve.

    I am more convinced than ever these extremely high IQ scores are not meaningful. It is not the case that there is no one that smart, because there clearly are, but our methods don't allow us to measure the exact amount with any sort of precision.

    I had a girl friend a few years ago who told me more than once that her IQ was 160. She had a doctorate and was on the faculty at Stanford so she wasn't a dummy, but I estimated her IQ was perhaps 125. Her math was so bad she could be forgiven for her mistake.

    I think the really smart people (not me) have IQs above the reliable range of the valid and reproducible intelligence tests. I'm not certain saying someone has an IQ of 170 actually means anything. Some day it will, but pencil and paper test are insufficient to gauge it now.
  136. @JackOH
    I can readily imagine a "pop intelligence/pop IQ" sub-genre tucked within larger categories, such as pop psychology, college prep, child-rearing, self-improvement, and the like. I'm not sure if such a category already exists.

    I'm thinking a "pop IQ" sub-genre could offer a good opportunity for Prof. Thompson and his colleagues to popularize their work, plus, in my mind's eye at least, it could demystify and depoliticize IQ a bit.

    Hans Eysenck published some books in this area. For example: https://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Own-I-Q-Pelican/dp/0140205160

    https://www.amazon.com/Test-Your-IQ-Explanation-Including/dp/0140249621

    My understanding is that it did not go over well in the psychological community (e.g. concerns about contaminating test scoring because of answers getting out there), but perhaps Dr. Thompson or others knowledgeable in this area could comment on that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    res, dcite, thanks. I'd probably read a book of profiles, or interviews, or even fiction based on Prof. Thompson's "7 Tribes of Intellect" essay. You'd need a writer with a deft, popular touch, maybe someone with a Studs Terkel just-the-facts sensibility, and, possibly, someone with good interviewing skills in case of a hostile media.

    Again, I'm not sure a "pop intelligence/pop IQ" sub-genre already exists, but it may be worth exploring by an enterprising publisher.

  137. @res
    Hans Eysenck published some books in this area. For example: https://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Own-I-Q-Pelican/dp/0140205160
    https://www.amazon.com/Test-Your-IQ-Explanation-Including/dp/0140249621
    My understanding is that it did not go over well in the psychological community (e.g. concerns about contaminating test scoring because of answers getting out there), but perhaps Dr. Thompson or others knowledgeable in this area could comment on that.

    res, dcite, thanks. I’d probably read a book of profiles, or interviews, or even fiction based on Prof. Thompson’s “7 Tribes of Intellect” essay. You’d need a writer with a deft, popular touch, maybe someone with a Studs Terkel just-the-facts sensibility, and, possibly, someone with good interviewing skills in case of a hostile media.

    Again, I’m not sure a “pop intelligence/pop IQ” sub-genre already exists, but it may be worth exploring by an enterprising publisher.

    Read More
  138. @res
    This site gives the GRE ceiling as roughly 4SD: http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/GREIQ.aspx

    This site has a comprehensive list of tests and the scores for about a 3SD (or 1 in a 1000) threshold: http://www.triplenine.org/HowtoJoin/TestScores.aspx

    Here is a site for "Uncommonly Difficult IQ Tests": http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/index.html

    Some discussion of the norming of the Mega test (stated as up to 200 IQ): http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/megadata/gradynorm.html
    This page indicates they are using an SD of 16 and has an alternative calibration topping out at 185 (which sounds more realistic to me): http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/megadata/calibration.html
    Note that they don't seem to consider Mega test scores above about 170 (36 raw) that reliable.

    Anne Roe made up her own high ceiling test (math ceiling was still inadequate for the physical scientists though) for her 1952 study of eminent scientists: https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Roe.aspx

    This did not answer your original question. I am curious about that as well. I seem to recall reading that the Duke TIP study (source of high IQ cohort in this genetic study) did additional testing after an initial screen (e.g. SAT, etc.), but have not been able to find a reference.

    I don’t find your first reference very satisfactory. The GRE is designed to have a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. This author (de la Joya) chooses a mean of 1035 and an unknown SD. He seems to mix up empirical results with figures derived from the mathematical models.

    He gives figures down to IQs in the sixties. This must be theoretical I can’t imagine that a mentally handicapped person with a 60 IQ has ever taken the GRE. His math seems like a hodge-podge of unconnected results. The result of all this is that he gives an IQ of about 160 for the top GRE scores. I guess I should be pleased. That would make me smarter yet.

    I looked through the high IQ test results. As I expected the N sizes are quite small. These are not common tests. It is unlikely that they have been validated by other studies. A WAIS result is backed up by hundreds of published studies that encompass literally millions of participants. None of this is possible at the extreme asymptotic end of a bell curve.

    I am more convinced than ever these extremely high IQ scores are not meaningful. It is not the case that there is no one that smart, because there clearly are, but our methods don’t allow us to measure the exact amount with any sort of precision.

    I had a girl friend a few years ago who told me more than once that her IQ was 160. She had a doctorate and was on the faculty at Stanford so she wasn’t a dummy, but I estimated her IQ was perhaps 125. Her math was so bad she could be forgiven for her mistake.

    I think the really smart people (not me) have IQs above the reliable range of the valid and reproducible intelligence tests. I’m not certain saying someone has an IQ of 170 actually means anything. Some day it will, but pencil and paper test are insufficient to gauge it now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    I don’t find your first reference very satisfactory.
     
    His approach comes across as very ad hoc (and the low end extrapolation is kind of silly, to his credit he does say: "I don't know if the IQ values much below 115 are as accurate or not."). Better references are welcome. I give the 160 figure more credence (than perhaps it deserves) because that is roughly the ceiling of the old SAT and I find it plausible they were similar. Given the ceiling and the mean I think just using a linear model (as he did) is a good starting point (especially given that we are interpolating in the range of most interest).

    I think the really smart people (not me) have IQs above the reliable range of the valid and reproducible intelligence tests.
     
    I agree with this. To my mind that point is around 4SD (160 IQ, that is around 1 in 30,000 which means the old SAT with about 1 in 100,000 perfect scores has a slightly higher ceiling). I feel like I have seen enough supporting evidence for this comparing standardized test scores with people I believe are smarter than I am (of course the scores are not perfect metrics, there is noise in addition to there being a ceiling). So saying someone has an IQ of 170 means (to me) someone is above that point (Assuming the test seems valid, random unproctored internet IQ tests need not apply ; ) And of course there is the matter of specific skills (intrinsic or learned).

    I was disappointed you did not comment on my second reference, which I think was the best of them (although it did not address the ceiling values directly). It covers widely used tests operating in a range where I think we can draw useful conclusions. Among other things, it indicates that the GRE and old SAT scoring were similar at the 3SD level.
    http://www.triplenine.org/HowtoJoin/TestScores.aspx
    I think these people take their test scores seriously and most (all?) of those tests have a large enough test taking population to generate believable 1 in 1,000 level thresholds assuming their ceiling is above that.

    If you don't mind my asking, how did your SAT score align with your GRE score? (I never took the GRE so can't compare for myself) Do you have any thoughts on how the ceilings for those two tests compared then? I think the SAT ceiling is better understood than the GRE ceiling because the SAT was normed for a broader population.

    I had a girl friend a few years ago who told me more than once that her IQ was 160. She had a doctorate and was on the faculty at Stanford so she wasn’t a dummy, but I estimated her IQ was perhaps 125. Her math was so bad she could be forgiven for her mistake.
     
    Chuckle. Since you comment on her math I am assuming she was not STEM? IMO all bets are off in soft fields (plenty of very smart people there, but also plenty of the "smart but not that smart" kind). Especially if there is any chance of affirmative action being in play. Did you have any sense of on what she based her claim? Not too many tests have ceilings much above that (as we have been discussing), so unless she maxed the math (which sounds unlikely?) it is hard to believe. I think you are older and more knowledgeable about this sort of thing than I am, but still worth noting that people lie (or take things like unproctored internet tests too seriously, or cherry pick from a body of evidence, or...) and in my experience those who brag loudest and "largest" about things like this are not the most credible.

    One additional point is that I think the differing (on average) math/verbal balance can make it more difficult to judge intelligence cross gender. Especially if the interactions are dominated by either math or verbal to the exclusion of the other. Then there is spatial intelligence...
  139. @RaceRealist88
    "You seem to have some hostility to the general topic of IQ. I can’t help but wonder why that is."

    No hostility at all. You're assuming my motivation too. That's fallacious.

    Without the confines of modern society, in my opinion, most high IQ people will be left in the dust. My point is, the "book smart" person wouldn't have the "survival smarts" needed when shit hits the fan.

    Look at those prepper shows. They don't look too intelligent to me, at least in the upper levels of what we're talking about here.

    Look at those prepper shows. They don’t look too intelligent to me

    Try to catch a prepper TV show of about two years ago. The first scene shows the father teaching his son how to shoot. Then the camera pans away and when it comes back we see that the dad has managed to shoot his thumb off.

    LMAO

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    Which proves my point. However, people have prepared will do much better in that hypothetical situation than the high IQ people who have experienced the cushion of modern day society.

    You'll need a good amount of athleticism when shit hits the fan, and I don't think these people (those with high IQs) would have that capability.
  140. @Pat Boyle
    Look at those prepper shows. They don’t look too intelligent to me

    Try to catch a prepper TV show of about two years ago. The first scene shows the father teaching his son how to shoot. Then the camera pans away and when it comes back we see that the dad has managed to shoot his thumb off.

    LMAO

    Which proves my point. However, people have prepared will do much better in that hypothetical situation than the high IQ people who have experienced the cushion of modern day society.

    You’ll need a good amount of athleticism when shit hits the fan, and I don’t think these people (those with high IQs) would have that capability.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    However, people have prepared will do much better in that hypothetical situation than the high IQ people who have experienced the cushion of modern day society.
     
    Agreed. Though having a few high IQ people in the camp would probably help.

    You’ll need a good amount of athleticism when shit hits the fan, and I don’t think these people (those with high IQs) would have that capability.
     
    Agreed with the first part, but I think you underestimate the correlation between athleticism and IQ. For example, see the idea of "system integrity": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22907506

    Then there is understanding the difference between "athleticism" and what is important for survival. Some good examples to think about are:
    - The body types for military special forces (e.g. usually not bodybuilder physiques).
    - The importance of physical endurance under stress. As above, but also note that women seem to have an advantage here (because of the need to survive giving birth?). A very unathletic looking female coworker I knew once did the RAAM: http://www.raceacrossamerica.org/

    As a thought experiment, and assuming you can reduce athleticism and intelligence to single dimensions, what balance of traits do you think would have the best chance of survival?
    Athleticism Intelligence
    0SD +4SD
    +1SD +3SD
    +2SD +2SD
    +3SD +1SD
    +4SD +0SD
    (my gut feel is +3SD athleticism with +1SD intelligence)

    I don't take this kind of discussion too seriously though because there are too many other variables.

    P.S. Sorry for going so far off topic. I guess that's a problem with the rather unique audience of the Unz Review.
  141. @Pat Boyle
    I don't find your first reference very satisfactory. The GRE is designed to have a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. This author (de la Joya) chooses a mean of 1035 and an unknown SD. He seems to mix up empirical results with figures derived from the mathematical models.

    He gives figures down to IQs in the sixties. This must be theoretical I can't imagine that a mentally handicapped person with a 60 IQ has ever taken the GRE. His math seems like a hodge-podge of unconnected results. The result of all this is that he gives an IQ of about 160 for the top GRE scores. I guess I should be pleased. That would make me smarter yet.

    I looked through the high IQ test results. As I expected the N sizes are quite small. These are not common tests. It is unlikely that they have been validated by other studies. A WAIS result is backed up by hundreds of published studies that encompass literally millions of participants. None of this is possible at the extreme asymptotic end of a bell curve.

    I am more convinced than ever these extremely high IQ scores are not meaningful. It is not the case that there is no one that smart, because there clearly are, but our methods don't allow us to measure the exact amount with any sort of precision.

    I had a girl friend a few years ago who told me more than once that her IQ was 160. She had a doctorate and was on the faculty at Stanford so she wasn't a dummy, but I estimated her IQ was perhaps 125. Her math was so bad she could be forgiven for her mistake.

    I think the really smart people (not me) have IQs above the reliable range of the valid and reproducible intelligence tests. I'm not certain saying someone has an IQ of 170 actually means anything. Some day it will, but pencil and paper test are insufficient to gauge it now.

    I don’t find your first reference very satisfactory.

    His approach comes across as very ad hoc (and the low end extrapolation is kind of silly, to his credit he does say: “I don’t know if the IQ values much below 115 are as accurate or not.”). Better references are welcome. I give the 160 figure more credence (than perhaps it deserves) because that is roughly the ceiling of the old SAT and I find it plausible they were similar. Given the ceiling and the mean I think just using a linear model (as he did) is a good starting point (especially given that we are interpolating in the range of most interest).

    I think the really smart people (not me) have IQs above the reliable range of the valid and reproducible intelligence tests.

    I agree with this. To my mind that point is around 4SD (160 IQ, that is around 1 in 30,000 which means the old SAT with about 1 in 100,000 perfect scores has a slightly higher ceiling). I feel like I have seen enough supporting evidence for this comparing standardized test scores with people I believe are smarter than I am (of course the scores are not perfect metrics, there is noise in addition to there being a ceiling). So saying someone has an IQ of 170 means (to me) someone is above that point (Assuming the test seems valid, random unproctored internet IQ tests need not apply ; ) And of course there is the matter of specific skills (intrinsic or learned).

    I was disappointed you did not comment on my second reference, which I think was the best of them (although it did not address the ceiling values directly). It covers widely used tests operating in a range where I think we can draw useful conclusions. Among other things, it indicates that the GRE and old SAT scoring were similar at the 3SD level.

    http://www.triplenine.org/HowtoJoin/TestScores.aspx

    I think these people take their test scores seriously and most (all?) of those tests have a large enough test taking population to generate believable 1 in 1,000 level thresholds assuming their ceiling is above that.

    If you don’t mind my asking, how did your SAT score align with your GRE score? (I never took the GRE so can’t compare for myself) Do you have any thoughts on how the ceilings for those two tests compared then? I think the SAT ceiling is better understood than the GRE ceiling because the SAT was normed for a broader population.

    I had a girl friend a few years ago who told me more than once that her IQ was 160. She had a doctorate and was on the faculty at Stanford so she wasn’t a dummy, but I estimated her IQ was perhaps 125. Her math was so bad she could be forgiven for her mistake.

    Chuckle. Since you comment on her math I am assuming she was not STEM? IMO all bets are off in soft fields (plenty of very smart people there, but also plenty of the “smart but not that smart” kind). Especially if there is any chance of affirmative action being in play. Did you have any sense of on what she based her claim? Not too many tests have ceilings much above that (as we have been discussing), so unless she maxed the math (which sounds unlikely?) it is hard to believe. I think you are older and more knowledgeable about this sort of thing than I am, but still worth noting that people lie (or take things like unproctored internet tests too seriously, or cherry pick from a body of evidence, or…) and in my experience those who brag loudest and “largest” about things like this are not the most credible.

    One additional point is that I think the differing (on average) math/verbal balance can make it more difficult to judge intelligence cross gender. Especially if the interactions are dominated by either math or verbal to the exclusion of the other. Then there is spatial intelligence…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    I used to date women on Match.com. I put in my criteria that she should have a doctorate. I like smarter girls. The one I ended up with for the longest time had a Doctor of Education degree. That was close enough for dating purposes. She ran off to Tennessee a year or so ago.

    I have no remembrance of my SAT scores. I did well enough on the GREs that I didn't have to pay for tuition and was recruited by a couple schools. That's about all that these scores are good for isn't it? I've never had a job interview where anyone ever asked me for my test scores. More importantly, I've hired many, many technical people over the years and have never asked for anyone else's scores.
  142. @RaceRealist88
    Which proves my point. However, people have prepared will do much better in that hypothetical situation than the high IQ people who have experienced the cushion of modern day society.

    You'll need a good amount of athleticism when shit hits the fan, and I don't think these people (those with high IQs) would have that capability.

    However, people have prepared will do much better in that hypothetical situation than the high IQ people who have experienced the cushion of modern day society.

    Agreed. Though having a few high IQ people in the camp would probably help.

    You’ll need a good amount of athleticism when shit hits the fan, and I don’t think these people (those with high IQs) would have that capability.

    Agreed with the first part, but I think you underestimate the correlation between athleticism and IQ. For example, see the idea of “system integrity”: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22907506

    Then there is understanding the difference between “athleticism” and what is important for survival. Some good examples to think about are:
    - The body types for military special forces (e.g. usually not bodybuilder physiques).
    - The importance of physical endurance under stress. As above, but also note that women seem to have an advantage here (because of the need to survive giving birth?). A very unathletic looking female coworker I knew once did the RAAM: http://www.raceacrossamerica.org/

    As a thought experiment, and assuming you can reduce athleticism and intelligence to single dimensions, what balance of traits do you think would have the best chance of survival?
    Athleticism Intelligence
    0SD +4SD
    +1SD +3SD
    +2SD +2SD
    +3SD +1SD
    +4SD +0SD
    (my gut feel is +3SD athleticism with +1SD intelligence)

    I don’t take this kind of discussion too seriously though because there are too many other variables.

    P.S. Sorry for going so far off topic. I guess that’s a problem with the rather unique audience of the Unz Review.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "Agreed. Though having a few high IQ people in the camp would probably help."

    Of course.

    "Agreed with the first part, but I think you underestimate the correlation between athleticism and IQ. For example, see the idea of “system integrity”"

    I know that athleticism and IQ are correlated. We are athletic animals, first and foremost.

    "Then there is understanding the difference between “athleticism” and what is important for survival. Some good examples to think about are"

    One who is more 'athletic' (which I would define as speed/agility/quickness/ability to use those traits and others) will have a better chance at survival than one who is not as 'athletic'.

    "The body types for military special forces (e.g. usually not bodybuilder physiques)."

    Well it depends how they train. Look at Rich Fronig. Surely he'd have a much easier time surviving if SHTF.

    This 1989 report states that SEALS/BUD/S:

    This somatochart reveals that BUD/S and SEAL groups are plotted fairly high along the mesomorphic axis, and therefore have more musculoskeletal development (mesomorphy) than reference males and many of the sports groups. SEALs are slightly fatter (more endomorphic) and less linear (ectomorphic) than BUD/S and many of the sports groups. In terms of average physique, both BUD/S and SEALs bear closer resemblance to Olympic athletes than to non-athletic men.

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a213069.pdf

    Mesomorphs have an easier time building muscle and are more likely to be 'athletic' (as defined above). Conversely, endos are more likely to be stronger. Look at where the reference population was on the somatochart (figure 1).

    "The importance of physical endurance under stress."

    Women are usually less fatigable than men.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4111134/

    But more men are studied in physiology studies so there is a slight bias there. I could see how women could be less fatigable though.

    "As a thought experiment, and assuming you can reduce athleticism and intelligence to single dimensions, what balance of traits do you think would have the best chance of survival?"

    I agree with your assessment.

    "I don’t take this kind of discussion too seriously though because there are too many other variables."

    Me neither, but we can make some good inferences in my opinion.

    "P.S. Sorry for going so far off topic. I guess that’s a problem with the rather unique audience of the Unz Review."

    It wasn't off topic.
  143. @res

    I don’t find your first reference very satisfactory.
     
    His approach comes across as very ad hoc (and the low end extrapolation is kind of silly, to his credit he does say: "I don't know if the IQ values much below 115 are as accurate or not."). Better references are welcome. I give the 160 figure more credence (than perhaps it deserves) because that is roughly the ceiling of the old SAT and I find it plausible they were similar. Given the ceiling and the mean I think just using a linear model (as he did) is a good starting point (especially given that we are interpolating in the range of most interest).

    I think the really smart people (not me) have IQs above the reliable range of the valid and reproducible intelligence tests.
     
    I agree with this. To my mind that point is around 4SD (160 IQ, that is around 1 in 30,000 which means the old SAT with about 1 in 100,000 perfect scores has a slightly higher ceiling). I feel like I have seen enough supporting evidence for this comparing standardized test scores with people I believe are smarter than I am (of course the scores are not perfect metrics, there is noise in addition to there being a ceiling). So saying someone has an IQ of 170 means (to me) someone is above that point (Assuming the test seems valid, random unproctored internet IQ tests need not apply ; ) And of course there is the matter of specific skills (intrinsic or learned).

    I was disappointed you did not comment on my second reference, which I think was the best of them (although it did not address the ceiling values directly). It covers widely used tests operating in a range where I think we can draw useful conclusions. Among other things, it indicates that the GRE and old SAT scoring were similar at the 3SD level.
    http://www.triplenine.org/HowtoJoin/TestScores.aspx
    I think these people take their test scores seriously and most (all?) of those tests have a large enough test taking population to generate believable 1 in 1,000 level thresholds assuming their ceiling is above that.

    If you don't mind my asking, how did your SAT score align with your GRE score? (I never took the GRE so can't compare for myself) Do you have any thoughts on how the ceilings for those two tests compared then? I think the SAT ceiling is better understood than the GRE ceiling because the SAT was normed for a broader population.

    I had a girl friend a few years ago who told me more than once that her IQ was 160. She had a doctorate and was on the faculty at Stanford so she wasn’t a dummy, but I estimated her IQ was perhaps 125. Her math was so bad she could be forgiven for her mistake.
     
    Chuckle. Since you comment on her math I am assuming she was not STEM? IMO all bets are off in soft fields (plenty of very smart people there, but also plenty of the "smart but not that smart" kind). Especially if there is any chance of affirmative action being in play. Did you have any sense of on what she based her claim? Not too many tests have ceilings much above that (as we have been discussing), so unless she maxed the math (which sounds unlikely?) it is hard to believe. I think you are older and more knowledgeable about this sort of thing than I am, but still worth noting that people lie (or take things like unproctored internet tests too seriously, or cherry pick from a body of evidence, or...) and in my experience those who brag loudest and "largest" about things like this are not the most credible.

    One additional point is that I think the differing (on average) math/verbal balance can make it more difficult to judge intelligence cross gender. Especially if the interactions are dominated by either math or verbal to the exclusion of the other. Then there is spatial intelligence...

    I used to date women on Match.com. I put in my criteria that she should have a doctorate. I like smarter girls. The one I ended up with for the longest time had a Doctor of Education degree. That was close enough for dating purposes. She ran off to Tennessee a year or so ago.

    I have no remembrance of my SAT scores. I did well enough on the GREs that I didn’t have to pay for tuition and was recruited by a couple schools. That’s about all that these scores are good for isn’t it? I’ve never had a job interview where anyone ever asked me for my test scores. More importantly, I’ve hired many, many technical people over the years and have never asked for anyone else’s scores.

    Read More
  144. @res

    However, people have prepared will do much better in that hypothetical situation than the high IQ people who have experienced the cushion of modern day society.
     
    Agreed. Though having a few high IQ people in the camp would probably help.

    You’ll need a good amount of athleticism when shit hits the fan, and I don’t think these people (those with high IQs) would have that capability.
     
    Agreed with the first part, but I think you underestimate the correlation between athleticism and IQ. For example, see the idea of "system integrity": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22907506

    Then there is understanding the difference between "athleticism" and what is important for survival. Some good examples to think about are:
    - The body types for military special forces (e.g. usually not bodybuilder physiques).
    - The importance of physical endurance under stress. As above, but also note that women seem to have an advantage here (because of the need to survive giving birth?). A very unathletic looking female coworker I knew once did the RAAM: http://www.raceacrossamerica.org/

    As a thought experiment, and assuming you can reduce athleticism and intelligence to single dimensions, what balance of traits do you think would have the best chance of survival?
    Athleticism Intelligence
    0SD +4SD
    +1SD +3SD
    +2SD +2SD
    +3SD +1SD
    +4SD +0SD
    (my gut feel is +3SD athleticism with +1SD intelligence)

    I don't take this kind of discussion too seriously though because there are too many other variables.

    P.S. Sorry for going so far off topic. I guess that's a problem with the rather unique audience of the Unz Review.

    “Agreed. Though having a few high IQ people in the camp would probably help.”

    Of course.

    “Agreed with the first part, but I think you underestimate the correlation between athleticism and IQ. For example, see the idea of “system integrity””

    I know that athleticism and IQ are correlated. We are athletic animals, first and foremost.

    “Then there is understanding the difference between “athleticism” and what is important for survival. Some good examples to think about are”

    One who is more ‘athletic’ (which I would define as speed/agility/quickness/ability to use those traits and others) will have a better chance at survival than one who is not as ‘athletic’.

    “The body types for military special forces (e.g. usually not bodybuilder physiques).”

    Well it depends how they train. Look at Rich Fronig. Surely he’d have a much easier time surviving if SHTF.

    This 1989 report states that SEALS/BUD/S:

    This somatochart reveals that BUD/S and SEAL groups are plotted fairly high along the mesomorphic axis, and therefore have more musculoskeletal development (mesomorphy) than reference males and many of the sports groups. SEALs are slightly fatter (more endomorphic) and less linear (ectomorphic) than BUD/S and many of the sports groups. In terms of average physique, both BUD/S and SEALs bear closer resemblance to Olympic athletes than to non-athletic men.

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a213069.pdf

    Mesomorphs have an easier time building muscle and are more likely to be ‘athletic’ (as defined above). Conversely, endos are more likely to be stronger. Look at where the reference population was on the somatochart (figure 1).

    “The importance of physical endurance under stress.”

    Women are usually less fatigable than men.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4111134/

    But more men are studied in physiology studies so there is a slight bias there. I could see how women could be less fatigable though.

    “As a thought experiment, and assuming you can reduce athleticism and intelligence to single dimensions, what balance of traits do you think would have the best chance of survival?”

    I agree with your assessment.

    “I don’t take this kind of discussion too seriously though because there are too many other variables.”

    Me neither, but we can make some good inferences in my opinion.

    “P.S. Sorry for going so far off topic. I guess that’s a problem with the rather unique audience of the Unz Review.”

    It wasn’t off topic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Look at Rich Froni(n)g.
     
    He is a good example. I think Crossfit tends more towards functional fitness (more go than show and a breadth of abilities) than most forms of "athleticism."

    Me neither, but we can make some good inferences in my opinion.
     
    Agreed. That is exactly the attitude I try to take in discussions like this.

    And thanks for the substantive responses to both my sex differences and special forces comments!

    That BUD/S and SEALS paper was both very interesting and new to me. If you know of any good blog posts discussing that paper I would be interested in a reference.
    I have some interest in somatotypes and am intrigued to see them being taken seriously by the US military (at least in 1986, is that still true?).

    My perspective on SEAL physiques is biased because the only one I have known personally (a teammate who later became a SEAL) seemed like a relatively (compared to SEAL pictures I have seen) lightly built ectomorph/mesomorph mix. Very athletic and I suspect much stronger than he looked, but even in the pictures I have seen of him as a SEAL he still looked slender.

    Have you incorporated the information in that paper much in your training work? It looks like a great source of benchmarks for an elite group. Do you use somatotypes much in your work? Do you have any experience with the Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes, Part I: Montreal Olympic Games Anthropological Project or Genetic and Anthropological Studies of Olympic Athletes books referenced in the paper? It would be interesting to discuss physical information like this on an iSteve HBD thread. (and sorry for the question bomb)

    P.S. For Santoculto's benefit, I am not a personal trainer but am a recreational athlete and have friends who are or have been trainers and find them a useful source of fitness, physiology, and nutrition information.

  145. @RaceRealist88
    "Agreed. Though having a few high IQ people in the camp would probably help."

    Of course.

    "Agreed with the first part, but I think you underestimate the correlation between athleticism and IQ. For example, see the idea of “system integrity”"

    I know that athleticism and IQ are correlated. We are athletic animals, first and foremost.

    "Then there is understanding the difference between “athleticism” and what is important for survival. Some good examples to think about are"

    One who is more 'athletic' (which I would define as speed/agility/quickness/ability to use those traits and others) will have a better chance at survival than one who is not as 'athletic'.

    "The body types for military special forces (e.g. usually not bodybuilder physiques)."

    Well it depends how they train. Look at Rich Fronig. Surely he'd have a much easier time surviving if SHTF.

    This 1989 report states that SEALS/BUD/S:

    This somatochart reveals that BUD/S and SEAL groups are plotted fairly high along the mesomorphic axis, and therefore have more musculoskeletal development (mesomorphy) than reference males and many of the sports groups. SEALs are slightly fatter (more endomorphic) and less linear (ectomorphic) than BUD/S and many of the sports groups. In terms of average physique, both BUD/S and SEALs bear closer resemblance to Olympic athletes than to non-athletic men.

    http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a213069.pdf

    Mesomorphs have an easier time building muscle and are more likely to be 'athletic' (as defined above). Conversely, endos are more likely to be stronger. Look at where the reference population was on the somatochart (figure 1).

    "The importance of physical endurance under stress."

    Women are usually less fatigable than men.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4111134/

    But more men are studied in physiology studies so there is a slight bias there. I could see how women could be less fatigable though.

    "As a thought experiment, and assuming you can reduce athleticism and intelligence to single dimensions, what balance of traits do you think would have the best chance of survival?"

    I agree with your assessment.

    "I don’t take this kind of discussion too seriously though because there are too many other variables."

    Me neither, but we can make some good inferences in my opinion.

    "P.S. Sorry for going so far off topic. I guess that’s a problem with the rather unique audience of the Unz Review."

    It wasn't off topic.

    Look at Rich Froni(n)g.

    He is a good example. I think Crossfit tends more towards functional fitness (more go than show and a breadth of abilities) than most forms of “athleticism.”

    Me neither, but we can make some good inferences in my opinion.

    Agreed. That is exactly the attitude I try to take in discussions like this.

    And thanks for the substantive responses to both my sex differences and special forces comments!

    That BUD/S and SEALS paper was both very interesting and new to me. If you know of any good blog posts discussing that paper I would be interested in a reference.
    I have some interest in somatotypes and am intrigued to see them being taken seriously by the US military (at least in 1986, is that still true?).

    My perspective on SEAL physiques is biased because the only one I have known personally (a teammate who later became a SEAL) seemed like a relatively (compared to SEAL pictures I have seen) lightly built ectomorph/mesomorph mix. Very athletic and I suspect much stronger than he looked, but even in the pictures I have seen of him as a SEAL he still looked slender.

    Have you incorporated the information in that paper much in your training work? It looks like a great source of benchmarks for an elite group. Do you use somatotypes much in your work? Do you have any experience with the Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes, Part I: Montreal Olympic Games Anthropological Project or Genetic and Anthropological Studies of Olympic Athletes books referenced in the paper? It would be interesting to discuss physical information like this on an iSteve HBD thread. (and sorry for the question bomb)

    P.S. For Santoculto’s benefit, I am not a personal trainer but am a recreational athlete and have friends who are or have been trainers and find them a useful source of fitness, physiology, and nutrition information.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    "He is a good example. I think Crossfit tends more towards functional fitness (more go than show and a breadth of abilities) than most forms of “athleticism.”"

    Yes but they're still in great shape, physique-wise.

    "That BUD/S and SEALS paper was both very interesting and new to me. If you know of any good blog posts discussing that paper I would be interested in a reference."

    I do not but I'll throw one together on my blog.

    "I have some interest in somatotypes and am intrigued to see them being taken seriously by the US military (at least in 1986, is that still true?)."'

    Not aware if they still use this, this is the first paper I've found on it. Somatype, I feel, would be very useful to the military.

    "My perspective on SEAL physiques is biased because the only one I have known personally (a teammate who later became a SEAL) seemed like a relatively (compared to SEAL pictures I have seen) lightly built ectomorph/mesomorph mix. Very athletic and I suspect much stronger than he looked, but even in the pictures I have seen of him as a SEAL he still looked slender."

    I don't know any personally, but the data in the paper show a good representation. Of course there would be some skew in somatype as certain somas give better advantages than others.

    "Have you incorporated the information in that paper much in your training work?"

    Kinda. The average person doesn't care about the details and they mostly just listen but the athletes I train want to know so I do explain to them. But mostly I gear things towards people's strengths first and what they want to do second.

    "Do you use somatotypes much in your work?"

    For predictions for muscle mass, fat gain/loss etc yea I do. It's great to know since you'll have a better idea of what body parts to work on as well as what inherent strengths and weaknesses will occur due to different leverages.

    "Do you have any experience with the Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes, Part I: Montreal Olympic Games Anthropological Project or Genetic and Anthropological Studies of Olympic Athletes books referenced in the paper?"

    No but I'm going to read them now. I'll let you know what I think.

    Here's a paper on the muscle fiber typing of Olympic weightlifters:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTUxOS8wMDEyNDI3OC0yMDAzMTEwMDAtMDAwMjA=/10.1519%4000124278-200311000-00020.pdf

    And another on powerlifters:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTUxOS8wMDEyNDI3OC0yMDAzMDUwMDAtMDAwMzE=/10.1519%4000124278-200305000-00031.pdf

    "It would be interesting to discuss physical information like this on an iSteve HBD thread. (and sorry for the question bomb)"

    I would, but a lot of comments there are low-quality in my opinion. If I see anything worth commenting on then I will. No worries about the questions. I enjoy answering them.

  146. @Pat Boyle
    What is the test these people with an IQ of 170 are taking? The last IQ-like test I took was the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). I got an 800 on the verbal part and a little bit lower on the quantitative part. That is just about as high as that test goes but it is still only three standard deviations above the mean. That would correspond to an IQ of only around 145.

    I'm smart enough, but I am no where near the smartest person I have ever known. Yet I maxed out on this test. So what test are they taking? It can't be the WAIS which I believe also has an upper limit of around 3 SDs. I took the Stanford-Binet as an undergraduate. I don't know its upper boundary but I don't think it goes any higher.

    I know that there are some tests given by specialty organizations for the highest IQs, but I wonder about their validity The WAIS, the GRE, the SAT and the Army tests have been given to millions. But these specialty tests have had, I think, only a handful of participants.

    Try to keep your answer simple - I'm not as smart as I would like to be.

    The Stanford-Binet test, insofar as I am aware, can go up to a maximum score of 225, so they may have been tested on that.

    I know that the WISC-IV went up to a maximum of 160.

    Read More
  147. Yes you’re probably right about the WISC, but wouldn’t a test for adults be more appropriate? Also 160 (4 SDs) still isn’t an IQ of 170.

    Wikipedia only shows a top score of 160 for the Stanford-Binet. Do you have a reference for those super high IQs you quote?

    I once took the Stanford-Binet. As I remember I got a score in the top group but certainly nothing like 225. Before I would place much faith in those kind of scores I would have to see some very convincing evidence. Since the Stanford-Binet is personally administered it would have to be replicated at least once. Any one with a IQ over two hundred is one-in-a-million (or more). The N is going to be very, very small.

    I think the concept of IQ is very valuable and useful concept but it only operates within a certain range. Maybe the range of human variation is greater than the test can measure. I don’t think these very high scores are meaningful.

    Read More
  148. I think the concept of IQ is very valuable and useful concept but it only operates within a certain range. Maybe the range of human variation is greater than the test can measure. I don’t think these very high scores are meaningful.

    Would you agree that a concept of intelligence at the level of 5 or 6 SD is meaningful (even if we don’t have a good measurement)? Is your non-meaningful judgment more a result of a lack of suitable tests or the impossibility of creating such a test?

    I think tests have demonstrated reasonable validity (e.g. the old SAT) up to ~160 IQ (4SD or about 1 in 30,000 people). IMHO in that range there are enough people to do reasonable norming and average out differences in specific abilities. Do you disagree with this assertion?

    By no means do I believe that the tests completely capture all abilities or produce a reliable exact rank ordering, but I do think they convey meaningful information throughout that range.

    As an example, I knew a physicist in college who scored above me on the SAT, but the qualitative difference in our math and physics ability was far greater than I think is explainable by the <1SD IQ difference indicated by the test (math test ceiling probably a big part of this, also see Anne Roe's experiences with physical scientists and her high IQ math test).

    I think this take on the far tail is interesting: http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2005/02/out-on-tail.html
    Notice that the scale is stated to be logarithmic!
    Worth noting the disconnect between the attempt to rate Feynman here and his oft repeated reputed school age IQ score.

    Some people recommend the Stanford Binet, Form L-M as a high ceiling IQ test for gifted children: http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/current_use.htm
    This paper compares the SB-L-M SB-4 and SB-5 for a population of 25 children: http://www.interesjournals.org/full-articles/scaling-three-versions-of-the-stanford-binet-intelligence-test-examining-ceiling-effects-for-identifying-giftedness.pdf
    My takeaways were:
    - The SB-L-M ceiling was higher than 160.
    - The variation between test results for each student concerns me.
    - The SB-L-M is based on ratio scores in contrast to the others. Can anyone here comment more on that?

    P.S. For what it is worth, I think an appropriate response to any IQ assertion is "Based on what?"

    Read More
  149. I am getting this feeling that Plomin and others in the field are getting desperate. They hoped they can nail the missing heritability problem by studying geniuses.

    Read More
  150. Ken Richardson’s comment

    https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/09/12/its-now-possible-in-theory-to-predict-life-success-from-a-genetic-test-at-birth/

    It is ironic that just as psychologists are claiming to have found genes for predicting success the wider world is eschewing their criteria of success as useless. In an interview with the New York Times (June 13, 2013) Laszlo Bock, a vice-president of human resources at Google said, “One of the things we’ve seen from all our data crunching is that GPAs [Grade Point Averages] are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless – no correlation at all except for brand-new college grads, where there’s a slight correlation”. In the UK, as reported by the BBC (January 18, 2016), major employers are abandoning reliance on educational attainments because there is no clear link between holding a degree and performance on a job.

    So whence that “genetic association” Plomin and colleagues are now proclaiming? The method entails a formidable battery of assumptions, data corrections, and statistical maneuvers. But the most fatal assumption is that human societies can be treated as random breeding populations in randomly distributed environments with equally random distributions of genes.

    On the contrary, human populations reflect continuous emigration and immigration. Immigrants with related genetic backgrounds tend not to disperse randomly in the target society. In their flow to jobs they concentrate in different social strata. This creates (entirely coincidental, non-causal) correlation between social class and genetic background persisting across many generations. For example, the Wellcome Trust’s “genetic map of Britain” shows strikingly different genetic admixtures among residents of different geographic regions of the United Kingdom (5).

    This is what is called “population structure.” As Evan Charney notes, it is “omnipresent in all populations and it wreaks havoc with assumptions about ‘relatedness’ and ‘unrelatedness’ that cannot be ‘corrected for’ by the statistical methods [devised]” (5). (For further critique of statistical maneuvres see ref 6). The correlation is simply a sophisticated re-description of the class structure of British society, its deeper history and all its corruptions including differential effects on childhood preparedness for schooling (7).

    In his recent Edge interview (Sep 24, 2016), Robert Plomin says, “I’m frustrated at having so little success in convincing people in education of the possibility of genetic influence. It is ignorance as much as it is antagonism.”

    On the contrary, it could be judicious circumspection. In 2013 Plomin gave evidence to the Government’s Select Committee on Education. The Prime Minister has just announced the return of grammar schools and selection at eleven years. Is there a connection? I doubt Plomin would even wish such a thing. But there are unintended consequences. History shows that anyone committed to a “genes as destiny” narrative, and a mythological meritocracy, based on nothing but mountains of correlations, needs to tread very cautiously.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    I personally love Ken Richardson's take on this stuff. I say this as a hereditarian (who may change his view due to Richardson's work). I strongly recommend Genes, Brains, and Human Potential, it's a great read and gives a lot to chew on. This is a good article by Richardson.

    https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/so-what-gene

    He has a very intriguing way of looking at this, a way of looking at this (intelligent cell, intelligent development, intelligent physiology) that I think a lot of psychologists won't know how to respond to. Check this out too.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

    Yea he seems to really not like Plomin. But you should read the newest book and be has other books as well (I'm going to pick those up too). Very interesting ideas. Also read this.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388793/

    I read that comment by Richardson a few weeks ago when I Googled his book name.

    Also worth noting that he doesn't bring up the B-W IQ gap. Only in a blurb he quoted Gottfredson on. Richardson pretty much says that there is variation in physiological systems and no physiologist would say that trait X being higher is better than another on some sort of linear scale. There is variation in the human system (especially the physiological system) and even though this wide variation exists, they're still functional. He also brings up social brain theory and how we evolved to cooperate.

    Finally he says that ideas, discoveries and inventions are group efforts and no one discovers things on their own.

  151. @utu
    Ken Richardson's comment

    https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/09/12/its-now-possible-in-theory-to-predict-life-success-from-a-genetic-test-at-birth/
    It is ironic that just as psychologists are claiming to have found genes for predicting success the wider world is eschewing their criteria of success as useless. In an interview with the New York Times (June 13, 2013) Laszlo Bock, a vice-president of human resources at Google said, “One of the things we’ve seen from all our data crunching is that GPAs [Grade Point Averages] are worthless as a criteria for hiring, and test scores are worthless – no correlation at all except for brand-new college grads, where there’s a slight correlation”. In the UK, as reported by the BBC (January 18, 2016), major employers are abandoning reliance on educational attainments because there is no clear link between holding a degree and performance on a job.

    So whence that “genetic association” Plomin and colleagues are now proclaiming? The method entails a formidable battery of assumptions, data corrections, and statistical maneuvers. But the most fatal assumption is that human societies can be treated as random breeding populations in randomly distributed environments with equally random distributions of genes.

    On the contrary, human populations reflect continuous emigration and immigration. Immigrants with related genetic backgrounds tend not to disperse randomly in the target society. In their flow to jobs they concentrate in different social strata. This creates (entirely coincidental, non-causal) correlation between social class and genetic background persisting across many generations. For example, the Wellcome Trust’s “genetic map of Britain” shows strikingly different genetic admixtures among residents of different geographic regions of the United Kingdom (5).

    This is what is called “population structure.” As Evan Charney notes, it is “omnipresent in all populations and it wreaks havoc with assumptions about ‘relatedness’ and ‘unrelatedness’ that cannot be ‘corrected for’ by the statistical methods [devised]” (5). (For further critique of statistical maneuvres see ref 6). The correlation is simply a sophisticated re-description of the class structure of British society, its deeper history and all its corruptions including differential effects on childhood preparedness for schooling (7).

    In his recent Edge interview (Sep 24, 2016), Robert Plomin says, “I’m frustrated at having so little success in convincing people in education of the possibility of genetic influence. It is ignorance as much as it is antagonism.”

    On the contrary, it could be judicious circumspection. In 2013 Plomin gave evidence to the Government’s Select Committee on Education. The Prime Minister has just announced the return of grammar schools and selection at eleven years. Is there a connection? I doubt Plomin would even wish such a thing. But there are unintended consequences. History shows that anyone committed to a “genes as destiny” narrative, and a mythological meritocracy, based on nothing but mountains of correlations, needs to tread very cautiously.

    I personally love Ken Richardson’s take on this stuff. I say this as a hereditarian (who may change his view due to Richardson’s work). I strongly recommend Genes, Brains, and Human Potential, it’s a great read and gives a lot to chew on. This is a good article by Richardson.

    https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/so-what-gene

    He has a very intriguing way of looking at this, a way of looking at this (intelligent cell, intelligent development, intelligent physiology) that I think a lot of psychologists won’t know how to respond to. Check this out too.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

    Yea he seems to really not like Plomin. But you should read the newest book and be has other books as well (I’m going to pick those up too). Very interesting ideas. Also read this.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388793/

    I read that comment by Richardson a few weeks ago when I Googled his book name.

    Also worth noting that he doesn’t bring up the B-W IQ gap. Only in a blurb he quoted Gottfredson on. Richardson pretty much says that there is variation in physiological systems and no physiologist would say that trait X being higher is better than another on some sort of linear scale. There is variation in the human system (especially the physiological system) and even though this wide variation exists, they’re still functional. He also brings up social brain theory and how we evolved to cooperate.

    Finally he says that ideas, discoveries and inventions are group efforts and no one discovers things on their own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Thanks for more links. Very interesting. I think I was ready and open for this stuff. It is liberating and enlightening.
  152. @RaceRealist88
    I personally love Ken Richardson's take on this stuff. I say this as a hereditarian (who may change his view due to Richardson's work). I strongly recommend Genes, Brains, and Human Potential, it's a great read and gives a lot to chew on. This is a good article by Richardson.

    https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/so-what-gene

    He has a very intriguing way of looking at this, a way of looking at this (intelligent cell, intelligent development, intelligent physiology) that I think a lot of psychologists won't know how to respond to. Check this out too.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzan-mazur/replace-the-modern-sythes_b_5284211.html

    Yea he seems to really not like Plomin. But you should read the newest book and be has other books as well (I'm going to pick those up too). Very interesting ideas. Also read this.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388793/

    I read that comment by Richardson a few weeks ago when I Googled his book name.

    Also worth noting that he doesn't bring up the B-W IQ gap. Only in a blurb he quoted Gottfredson on. Richardson pretty much says that there is variation in physiological systems and no physiologist would say that trait X being higher is better than another on some sort of linear scale. There is variation in the human system (especially the physiological system) and even though this wide variation exists, they're still functional. He also brings up social brain theory and how we evolved to cooperate.

    Finally he says that ideas, discoveries and inventions are group efforts and no one discovers things on their own.

    Thanks for more links. Very interesting. I think I was ready and open for this stuff. It is liberating and enlightening.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RaceRealist88
    No problem. I've bought a few 'anti-HBD' books as some would term them. I do believe that the truth lies in between two extremes, so getting to know both sides of the argument is a must.

    I have a lot of reading to do this summer now.
  153. @res

    Look at Rich Froni(n)g.
     
    He is a good example. I think Crossfit tends more towards functional fitness (more go than show and a breadth of abilities) than most forms of "athleticism."

    Me neither, but we can make some good inferences in my opinion.
     
    Agreed. That is exactly the attitude I try to take in discussions like this.

    And thanks for the substantive responses to both my sex differences and special forces comments!

    That BUD/S and SEALS paper was both very interesting and new to me. If you know of any good blog posts discussing that paper I would be interested in a reference.
    I have some interest in somatotypes and am intrigued to see them being taken seriously by the US military (at least in 1986, is that still true?).

    My perspective on SEAL physiques is biased because the only one I have known personally (a teammate who later became a SEAL) seemed like a relatively (compared to SEAL pictures I have seen) lightly built ectomorph/mesomorph mix. Very athletic and I suspect much stronger than he looked, but even in the pictures I have seen of him as a SEAL he still looked slender.

    Have you incorporated the information in that paper much in your training work? It looks like a great source of benchmarks for an elite group. Do you use somatotypes much in your work? Do you have any experience with the Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes, Part I: Montreal Olympic Games Anthropological Project or Genetic and Anthropological Studies of Olympic Athletes books referenced in the paper? It would be interesting to discuss physical information like this on an iSteve HBD thread. (and sorry for the question bomb)

    P.S. For Santoculto's benefit, I am not a personal trainer but am a recreational athlete and have friends who are or have been trainers and find them a useful source of fitness, physiology, and nutrition information.

    “He is a good example. I think Crossfit tends more towards functional fitness (more go than show and a breadth of abilities) than most forms of “athleticism.””

    Yes but they’re still in great shape, physique-wise.

    “That BUD/S and SEALS paper was both very interesting and new to me. If you know of any good blog posts discussing that paper I would be interested in a reference.”

    I do not but I’ll throw one together on my blog.

    “I have some interest in somatotypes and am intrigued to see them being taken seriously by the US military (at least in 1986, is that still true?).”‘

    Not aware if they still use this, this is the first paper I’ve found on it. Somatype, I feel, would be very useful to the military.

    “My perspective on SEAL physiques is biased because the only one I have known personally (a teammate who later became a SEAL) seemed like a relatively (compared to SEAL pictures I have seen) lightly built ectomorph/mesomorph mix. Very athletic and I suspect much stronger than he looked, but even in the pictures I have seen of him as a SEAL he still looked slender.”

    I don’t know any personally, but the data in the paper show a good representation. Of course there would be some skew in somatype as certain somas give better advantages than others.

    “Have you incorporated the information in that paper much in your training work?”

    Kinda. The average person doesn’t care about the details and they mostly just listen but the athletes I train want to know so I do explain to them. But mostly I gear things towards people’s strengths first and what they want to do second.

    “Do you use somatotypes much in your work?”

    For predictions for muscle mass, fat gain/loss etc yea I do. It’s great to know since you’ll have a better idea of what body parts to work on as well as what inherent strengths and weaknesses will occur due to different leverages.

    “Do you have any experience with the Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes, Part I: Montreal Olympic Games Anthropological Project or Genetic and Anthropological Studies of Olympic Athletes books referenced in the paper?”

    No but I’m going to read them now. I’ll let you know what I think.

    Here’s a paper on the muscle fiber typing of Olympic weightlifters:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTUxOS8wMDEyNDI3OC0yMDAzMTEwMDAtMDAwMjA=/10.1519%4000124278-200311000-00020.pdf

    And another on powerlifters:

    http://cyber.sci-hub.bz/MTAuMTUxOS8wMDEyNDI3OC0yMDAzMDUwMDAtMDAwMzE=/10.1519%4000124278-200305000-00031.pdf

    “It would be interesting to discuss physical information like this on an iSteve HBD thread. (and sorry for the question bomb)”

    I would, but a lot of comments there are low-quality in my opinion. If I see anything worth commenting on then I will. No worries about the questions. I enjoy answering them.

    Read More
  154. @utu
    Thanks for more links. Very interesting. I think I was ready and open for this stuff. It is liberating and enlightening.

    No problem. I’ve bought a few ‘anti-HBD’ books as some would term them. I do believe that the truth lies in between two extremes, so getting to know both sides of the argument is a must.

    I have a lot of reading to do this summer now.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


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