Scientific American and Spearman's g. [Archive] - Page 2

AmateurScientist

18th October 2006, 04:11 PM

Nope, unfortunately being a pyrrhos skeptic doesn't allow me to just make things up. Which is why I haven't concluded that "accumulated wealth over time is the best indicator of intelligence". I lack the background knowledge of the field to make any kind of conclusion about what the best indicator of intelligence is. It's just a subjective opinion, not much more than a gut feeling. It's an area that I'd like to see critically explored. Honestly expressing these sentiments isn't the same as claiming "conclusions". And I've been transparent about this from the beginning.

(bolding mine)

Here is what you said earlier in this thread, when you first mentioned your "subjective opinion."

I do have one rather firm position, which has caused me some controversy: I remember hearing in a discussion on intelligence that wealth is probably the best indicator of intelligence. I think a modified version of that is probably trues: that acquired wealth over time probably is the best (although imperfect) indicator of intelligence relative to other people.

Now you claim you have been transparent all along that you were merely expressing a "sentiment." Well, I for one wish you had been a little more transparent that you were merely opining about something for which you have no evidence to support your opinion. I guess that's my fault for interpreting "firm position" to mean one you could and were willing to support.

AS

andyandy

18th October 2006, 04:12 PM

A number of factors. For example, to start off with, you may be lumping different performing populations together. For example, it may be that women accumulate more wealth over time than most men, but a minority of men inflate the numbers for all men. Etc. ad nauseum.

And what evidence do you have for any of these factors?

andyandy

18th October 2006, 04:14 PM

(bolding mine)

Now you claim you have been transparent all along that you were merely expressing a "sentiment." Well, I for one wish you had been a little more transparent that you were merely opining about something for which you have no evidence to support your opinion. I guess that's my fault for interpreting "firm position" to mean one you could and were willing to support.

AS

you and me both :rolleyes:

Dave1001

18th October 2006, 04:17 PM

And what evidence do you have for any of these factors?

What evidence do you have that it makes sense to lump all men in the same category in analyzing their wealth accumulation over time? You're the one suggesting to do that.

AmateurScientist

18th October 2006, 04:21 PM

you and me both :rolleyes:

Heh heh. Hey, I tried to tell you two or three pages ago.

AS

Dave1001

18th October 2006, 04:23 PM

(bolding mine)

Here is what you said earlier in this thread, when you first mentioned your "subjective opinion."

Now you claim you have been transparent all along that you were merely expressing a "sentiment." Well, I for one wish you had been a little more transparent that you were merely opining about something for which you have no evidence to support your opinion. I guess that's my fault for interpreting "firm position" to mean one you could and were willing to support.

AS

I do have one rather firm position, which has caused me some controversy: I remember hearing in a discussion on intelligence that wealth is probably the best indicator of intelligence. I think a modified version of that is probably trues: that acquired wealth over time probably is the best (although imperfect) indicator of intelligence relative to other people.

"rather firm" "think" "probably true" "probably is the best (although imperfect)". That statement was full of qualifiers for a reason: I perceive myself to be rather firm in this position, but the position itself is qualified and noncomittal. I don't see my position changing until I develop more expertise in the field, since it is mostly based on gut, personal observation, and intuition -not rigorous empirical study and analysis. If I have a position that I can and am willing to support, I state so openly. This is more a position I'm interested in exploring.

I think I've been transparent about my lack of an opinion grounded in expertise or empirical study in this topic all along, and I think your quotes from previous posts of mine indicate this.

Dave1001

18th October 2006, 04:25 PM

Heh heh. Hey, I tried to tell you two or three pages ago.

AS

The two of you are cute in your primate social aesthetics.

AmateurScientist

18th October 2006, 04:26 PM

"rather firm" "think" "probably true" "probably is the best (although imperfect)". That statement was full of qualifiers for a reason: I perceive myself to be rather firm in this position, but the position itself is qualified and noncomittal.

Being firm in a position whilst claiming the position itself is "qualified and noncommital" is contradictory nonsense. It's doublespeak.

AS

andyandy

18th October 2006, 04:39 PM

What evidence do you have that it makes sense to lump all men in the same category in analyzing their wealth accumulation over time? You're the one suggesting to do that.

If you have a theory such as "wealth accumulation is the best measure of intelligence" then you should be prepared to use "wealth accumulation" as a comparative to determine intelligence. It should be able to be applied in general and in specific terms if it is indeed a good theory. An absolute basic division in society is men/women so it is strange that you would not wish to test your theory in its most broad sense. What merit do you think "wealth accumulation" does have as a comparative for intelligence? Does it have any?

to take your single "factor" that may mean that data on women and wealth accumulation is skewed.....

For example, it may be that women accumulate more wealth over time than most men, but a minority of men inflate the numbers for all men.

but this data does not support your theory

Official figures show women are 14% more likely than men to live in households with incomes that are 60% below the national average - the official measure of poverty, the Equal Opportunities Commission said

in this case we have x a baseline poverty measure, and women 14% more likely than men to be below this figure. If a man earns >x then regardless of what his salary is, he is counted the same. So there is not the potential for a small number of super earners to skew the data in the way that you suggest.

do you have any other theories?

luchog

18th October 2006, 06:01 PM

I think I said from the outset that it was a subjective opinion not rooted in careful weighing of the evidence.

AKA, Theology.

I think that's where most people (even most skeptics') opinions come from on a wide variety of topics.
Okay, this statement has two big inaccuracies. The first is clearly obvious in the first two words of the sentence; the second is a complete misunderstanding of what a skeptic is. It is precisely the careful weight of evidence before accepting any claims or conclusions that is the meaning of what being a skeptic is.

luchog

18th October 2006, 06:09 PM

"rather firm" "think" "probably true" "probably is the best (although imperfect)". That statement was full of qualifiers for a reason: I perceive myself to be rather firm in this position, but the position itself is qualified and noncomittal.

Or, stripped of it's excessive verbosity, "I believe what I believe and don't really to find out the truth."

Thinktoomuch

18th October 2006, 07:48 PM

BPesta, i accept all your statements, but you have still not answered my question whether there is a fallacy in this logic:

1 – there is a claim that accumulation of wealth is the best measure of intelligence.
2 - there is another claim that IQ is the best measure of intelligence.
3 – IMO:
accumulation of wealth, all environmental factors being equal, is a function of personality;
intelligence, however defined and measured, is only a subset of personality.
Therefore, 1 is impossible, regardless of the environmental factors. This line of thought does not affect 2 either way, although empirically it would appear an oversimplification of a complex concept.

Yes or no, please. If there is a fallacy your explanation will be greatly appreciated.

Everybody else: nobody has jumped on this, which i take to mean that it has been agreed or ignored, the latter being likely considering that you continue on what i consider fruitless lines of thought.

With great relief and admiration i have seen a post that provides a good example of what i am getting at:

... in order to reach the conclusion that "accumulated wealth over time is the best indicator of intelligence" you've got to make a lot of unsupported assertions. To wit:

1. The more intelligent you are, the better choices you will make. A good choice is one that achieves a goal, or makes achieving a goal more likely. A bad choice is one that forfeits a goal, or makes achieving a goal less likely.

2. We can determine in retrospect how good a particular choice was based on its outcome, without considering the information and reasoning available to the person making the decision at the time. No one ever makes the right decision for the wrong reason, or the wrong decision for the right reason.

3a. Everyone's goal is to accumulate as much wealth as possible, in every situation.

OR

3b. Accumulation of wealth is so overwhelmingly important that all other goals can be discounted as equally worthless.

4. Acquiring a given amount of wealth always requires a comparable number of choices, and those choices will be of comparable difficulty. It's just as easy to be born literally penniless and accumulate a million dollars as it is to be born with a net worth of ten million dollars and acquire another million.

5. It is not possible for an individual to accumulate wealth other than as a direct result of his or her own personal choices.

Now, some of these points are more arguable than others, but I don't think we can take any of them (except maybe #1) as axiomatic.

Let’s see if it gets more attention.

Along these lines, think of this scenario.

A young female, of whatever ethnic group and in whatever environment, has an IQ of 75. As many like her do, she gets pregnant. She can either have the baby and most likely condemn herself and the baby to a life of poverty or abort and reduce the poverty statistics. If accumulation of wealth is the best measure of intelligence, an abortionist is more intelligent than a non-abortionist with the same IQ.

The same young woman, with or without baby, discovers that prostitution pays much more than working in the menial jobs allowed by her low IQ. If accumulation of wealth is the best measure of intelligence, a prostitute is more intelligent than a non-prostitute with the same IQ. Corollary: pimps provide a valuable contribution to the development of intelligence by helping young women discover the advantages of prostitution.

The mind boggles. Should we start talking about Colombian drug lords?

Jeff Corey

18th October 2006, 08:05 PM

Thinktoomuch

18th October 2006, 08:18 PM

Interesting. It is actually ~135, with statistically correlated accumulation of wealth. Would you care to elaborate?

ETA: Do you include my appreciation of Steven Howard's argument in your highly sophisticated definition of the value of mine?

bpesta22

19th October 2006, 08:10 AM

I don't claim IQ is the best predictor of wealth.

Wealth is obviously multiply determined-- IQ explains about 10% of the variance, but only if you assume IQ causes wealth and not the other way around (i.e., wealth is a proxy for environment which causes IQ).

I reckon there could be a third variable explaining the correlation too, but I don't think it's a stretch to say *some* of how much money people make is determined by how smart they are.

Thinktoomuch

19th October 2006, 08:30 AM

Yahzi

19th October 2006, 12:09 PM

I admit I was pulling your chain a little bit. I do think my points are valid, but I don't think it reflects all that badly on your character.

My objection was I perceived you were spinning a factual error made on your part into a "hey look at my integrity (I'ma skeptic; you're not)" issue.
You seem constituitionally incapable of dealing with facts.

Read the thread.

My "spin" did not occur until AFTER you made your charges.

Now you are rewriting history so that you can justify the charges you just admitted were unjustifiable.

Is this how you treat all facts? Given that you cannot keep the history and facts of a single thread straight, should we trust anything you say about the history and facts of psychometry? And more to the point, given your response to evidence that proves you wrong, we know you are not a skeptic.

You did not say, "Oh, I was wrong." You said, "Things happened in a different order than they did in reality, and thus I am less wrong than it appears."

But I have to thank you: you have destroyed your credibility vastly more effectively than anything I could have ever hoped for.

Your willingess to twist facts and history to make your position look better, your inability to grasp that the facts are readily accessible in this thread, and your ready resort to character slurs that even you recognize are unjustifiable say everything we need to know about your credibility.

Folks, if he's this loose with the facts when you can check them by reading this same thread, how loose do you think he is with facts that are harder to check up on?

Exactly.

My post containing the error: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1998597&postcount=142

The post in which Rass corrects me: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2002908&postcount=151

The post in which I accept the correction: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2003016&postcount=158

Bpesta's charges: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2003083&postcount=160

My response: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2005767&postcount=184 (Do you see any "character spin" here?)

Bpesta continues the assault: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2006142&postcount=185

And here is presumably where my spin occurs... after two posts of Bpesta's on the topic: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2009864&postcount=192

Perhaps those first two posts were by Bpesta's evil twin? That could explain why he apparently forgot they existed.

I haven't followed the gorilla thing. What was the point again ?
You have dismissed the gorilla example at least 3 times now, as too inane to discuss. And now you admit you don't even know what it is?

Again we see the quality of your argument. You will dismiss data without even knowing what it is. The mere fact that it contradicts your conclusion is all you need to know.

I can't say it enough: Theology.

Yahzi

19th October 2006, 12:14 PM

AKA, Theology.
I would ask Dave why he posted his theological questions ins Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology... but I have him on /ignore.

:D

bpesta22

19th October 2006, 12:18 PM

I did not say that the claim was yours, I think it was Dave. I focused on this because it appeared to me the major point of discussion. Any idea why Jeff became despondent? His one liners are rarely productive.

I dunno Think-- I haven't been following the wealth debate in this thread all that close, although I did realize you weren't saying I made the claim...

Yahzi

19th October 2006, 12:24 PM

Any idea why Jeff became despondent? His one liners are rarely productive.
One often becomes despondent in the face of theological denseness. In such cases, one-liners are as appropriate of a response as any.

I would guess Jeff's problem with your argument is that it obscures the point at hand, rather than clarifying it. The examples you presented are arguments for wealth equalling IQ: a woman who has the intelligence and fortitude to get an abortion rather than ruin her (and her child's) life is probably smarter than one who doesn't. A woman who successfully manipulates the system in the only way available to her (i.e. your prostituition example) probably is smarter.

There are many good arguments for why wealth does not equal IQ: yours are not among them.

Thinktoomuch

20th October 2006, 03:11 AM

Welcome back Yahzi. And I mean it, I am not being sarcastic.
I found your comments very useful, because they show quite clearly how two well intentioned people in good faith may put wildly different interpretations on words that appear to them totally unambiguous.

What would be even more useful now would be to elucidate the thought process by which in your opinion my argument, even if it were true that it “obscures the point at hand, rather than clarifying it”, becomes “theological denseness” that justifies dismissing it with an insult.

There are three parts to this:

1. My argument = theology

It was already on record that I agreed with you that the discussion had taken a “theological” bent, i.e. some posters appeared to start from a belief and try to shoehorn anything into supporting it. My argument, be it clarifying or obscuring, was in my opinion unequivocally labelled as an attempt to get rid of red herrings and revert to basic logic, that is the antithesis of “theology”.

2. theological bent = denseness

This is easy to agree to, emotionally; I would argue, however, that from a logical point of view this is an unsubstantiated conclusion. For example, intellectual dishonesty is an equally valid, I would even say more probable alternative. Would you now say that, Jeff’s estimate of my IQ being demonstrably wrong, I am intellectually dishonest:D ?

3. stupidity = justification for insult

I have always believed that an insult debases the person who makes it, not the person who receives it. If all my opponents can say about my logic is that it is “crap” I am perfectly happy with it. You say that “in the face of theological denseness” an insult is “as appropriate of (sic) a response as any”. If you were not merely alluding to the fact that emotionally disturbed people can be easily provoked to behave in an irrational manner, I could then be tempted to dismiss your opinion. But I would never say that your opinion is crap,:D I would say: “I do not agree with your opinion but do not wish to spend more time discussing this particular point”. We could then fall again in a philosophical discussion of when enough is enough and dismissal per se is an appropriate response and not “closed mindedness”.

Let’s now discuss the validity of my examples.

If they are seen out of context, I have no problem with your statement:

“The examples you presented are arguments for wealth equalling IQ: a woman who has the intelligence and fortitude to get an abortion rather than ruin her (and her child's) life is probably smarter than one who doesn't. A woman who successfully manipulates the system in the only way available to her (i.e. your prostitution example) probably is smarter.”

Superficially, then, there is nothing wrong with your conclusion that “There are many good arguments for why wealth does not equal IQ: yours are not among them”. I submit to you that your conclusion is valid only within one narrow frame of reference:

- the writer tries to prove that wealth does not equal IQ
- his examples may be seen as supporting what he wants to disprove
- therefore the writer’s mucking in his own nest.

My frame of reference, which I thought I had adequately explained before making those paradoxical examples, including a reference to another poster’s supporting argument, is different and in my opinion sufficiently robust to sustain my reasoning:

If these premises are true:
- accumulation of wealth, environmental factors being equal, is a matter of choice before it becomes a matter of individual ability
- how humans make choices is a matter of personality, of which “intelligence” is a component
then:
- it should be possible to find a combination of personality factors that correlates to wealth better than intelligence alone.

The proposition being discussed is that the measurable variable “wealth” is a better approximation of the unknown variable “intelligence” than the measurable variable “IQ”. I contend that the above frame of reference, if correct, is more fruitful for establishing whether the proposition is true. I do not have supporting documentation for my reasoning and I am quite prepared to stand corrected if there is reliable contrary evidence. This is the purpose of the forum, isn’t it?

I am not going to quibble about the correctness of your shorthand “wealth equalling IQ”; I think you mean the same thing. The discussion about the best way to measure IQ is another issue and I do not feel qualified to touch it.

The examples I made were only a caricature to show that, if the proposition is true:
- choices that are “intelligent”, that is aimed at accumulating wealth, could be abhorrent to people with a different personality i.e. set of chosen values (abortion, prostitution, pimping, selling drugs etc.);
- people whose personality goes against the accumulation of wealth are therefore less intelligent;
in the hope of eliciting discussion within my proposed frame of reference.

(The thought just struck me: how do Christians resolve the paradox of the good old Protestant Work Ethics? Does God love more a drug dealer than a monk? If the drug dealer is busted and dies poor in prison, does God love him less? But I digress...)

Yahzi

20th October 2006, 01:10 PM

What would be even more useful now would be to elucidate the thought process by which in your opinion my argument, even if it were true that it “obscures the point at hand, rather than clarifying it”, becomes “theological denseness” that justifies dismissing it with an insult.
Speaking of unambigiousity, I did not mean to imply that your position was theologically dense, but rather, that the entire topic had degenerated to that. Hence the discussion had become a series of one-liners, because that is the natural end-state of all theological discussions, for all participants, irrespective of their individual theological or anti-theological positions.

... We could then fall again in a philosophical discussion of when enough is enough and dismissal per se is an appropriate response and not “closed mindedness”.
I confess, I begin to percieve the wisdom in Jeff's policy of non-engagement.

Superficially, then, there is nothing wrong with your conclusion...
I could not follow your point here. It seems to be "Ya, my examples sucked, but..."

My point was, your examples sucked.

I contend that the above frame of reference, if correct, is more fruitful for establishing whether the proposition is true.
We already have a perfectly adequate frame of reference for investigating the proposition. In that frame, the normal, obvious frame, your examples do not show what you want them to show. I.e., they suck.

I am not going to quibble about the correctness of your shorthand “wealth equalling IQ”;
It's not my shorthand. It is Dave's definition.

choices that are “intelligent”, that is aimed at accumulating wealth, could be abhorrent to people with a different personality i.e. set of chosen values (abortion, prostitution, pimping, selling drugs etc.)
People who are intelligent find ways to make abhorrent choices acceptable, when they are the only choices available. Talking yourself into a choice is just another puzzle to solve.

"Man is the creature who adapts."

On a side note, is it necessary for you to specify a font and color for each sentence? Not only does it make replying a nightmare, it robs others of the power to present the text as they see fit. Really, the default is good enough for most of us.

Thinktoomuch

20th October 2006, 04:21 PM

I am disappointed.
You neatly avoid expressing an opinion on the appropriateness of dismissing a point with an insult but then make it clear what your position is by just saying that my examples suck. As I said before, if that is the extent of your dialectic capacity, I am perfectly happy to keep my counsel.

.......

People who are intelligent find ways to make abhorrent choices acceptable, when they are the only choices available.

A choice is acceptable when it is is no choice? How perceptive! Tautologies aside, I am talking greed, not survival. Was this so hard to understand?

"On a side note, is it necessary for you to specify a font and color for each sentence? Not only does it make replying a nightmare, it robs others of the power to present the text as they see fit. Really, the default is good enough for most of us."

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have typed my response in MS Word before pasting it to avoid the system autologging me off (and losing my text as it happened before because of the bug). If this creates problems I apologise.

Yahzi

21st October 2006, 12:57 PM

I am disappointed.
I can't imagine why.

My opinion on the appropriateness of dismissing a point with an insult is clear: when the point is maddeningly irrelevant or unhelpful.

And your examples suck for the reasons I gave in the first place. They do not demonstrate your point, but rather, demonstrate the point you were arguing against: and there are other examples already provided which more clearly illuminate the argument.

As I said before, if that is the extent of your dialectic capacity, I am perfectly happy to keep my counsel.
There are some people who argue for the sheer pleasure of arguing, for the ectasy of the orgy of words. Despite the ornamentation of this paragraph, I am not one of them. However, I can spot one easily enough.

Was this so hard to understand?
Yes, it was hard to understand. Because your analogies sucked. They did not convey the context you meant them to convey. Which, as far as I can tell, is the sum total of this conversation: your analogies failed to illustrate the point you wanted to illustrate.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
This post lacked the innumerable bracket tags, so whatever you're doing now is fine.

Thinktoomuch

21st October 2006, 07:24 PM

My opinion on the appropriateness of dismissing a point with an insult is clear: when the point is maddeningly irrelevant or unhelpful.

In other words, when you are mad it is OK to make a fool of yourself. I do not agree but I respect your point of view. It appears to be quite common, maybe common enough to be "normal".

Yes, it was hard to understand.

Fair enough. Given that you seem to imply that my purpose is to enjoy "an orgy of words" I will try to use words of one or two sillables.

1. I have proposed another way to look at the issue and asked for comments.
2. Your only comment is that you are happy with the "normal" way and mine is useless, without saying why.
3. You tell me that from your point of view my examples suck.
4. I ask you to change point of view or tell me why you won't.
5. You repeat that from your point of view my examples suck.
6. I think that this is useless and it would have cost you less effort to just answer my question by briefly pointing out any flaws you see in my view, if you can.
7. If this is too much effort, see above. Feel free to insult me.

To make it easy for anybody who wants to express an opinion with just a yes/no/don't know answer, this is, again, my line of inquiry:

Is there evidence of a positive correlation between these personality factors and wealth:

-abstract thinking
-practical thinking
-extroversion
-introversion
-thrift
-persistence
-generosity
-avarice
-compassion
-greed
-ruthlessness
etc. etc.

Could a specific combination of these factors be found that has a high correlation with wealth?

Would this combination then be the best definition of intelligence?

Jeff Corey

21st October 2006, 10:12 PM

... Given that you seem to imply that my purpose is to enjoy "an orgy of words" I will try to use words of one or two sillables...
Point made.

Thinktoomuch

22nd October 2006, 12:02 AM

Point made.

Thank you. Are we talking about the same point, though?

Yahzi

22nd October 2006, 12:26 AM

Thank you. Are we talking about the same point, though?
It seems highly unlikely.

Your only comment is that you are happy with the "normal" way and mine is useless, without saying why.
I said why. Your examples demonstrate cases where wealth is an example of intelligence.

Paris Hilton, and the vast class of people who are wealthy for reasons other than personal fortitude and problem solving, are examples against the proposition.

Would this combination then be the best definition of intelligence?
So now you want to define intelligence as wealth-gathering skill?

This argument is even more vapid than Dave's.

Thinktoomuch

22nd October 2006, 01:18 AM

It seems highly unlikely.

I am sure you can see when a question is rethorical.

I said why. Your examples demonstrate cases where wealth is an example of intelligence.

Paris Hilton, and the vast class of people who are wealthy for reasons other than personal fortitude and problem solving, are examples against the proposition.

We are not communicating. Considering that we are by any objective standard "intelligent" people, there must be some other cause for this lack of communication.
Explanation take 4.
Forget the examples. If you do not change paradigm, they ARE counterproductive, I said that from the beginning.
Paris Hilton is NOT an example against my proposition. My proposition is how to best account for the individual wealth-gathering skill INDEPENDENTLY of the environmental factors. Because I am not a psy expert I am prepared to stand corrected on the methodology aspects. Neither you nor anybody else has yet "educated" me. Can you do this?

So now you want to define intelligence as wealth-gathering skill?

How the **** did you get that?
I am at a loss how to express for the fourth time my hypothesis:

WGS = f(p1,p2,..,IQ,..pn)
IQ= f(i1,12,....in)
"intelligence" <>IQ<>WGS
if IQ is agreed to be a reasonably accurate measure of intelligence (not necessarily the best) WGS CAN NOT be a better measure of intelligence because it is determined by many other competing personality factors, whatever the environmental factors. Am I wrong? Please "educate" me.

Yahzi

22nd October 2006, 11:19 AM

if IQ is agreed to be a reasonably accurate measure of intelligence (not necessarily the best) WGS CAN NOT be a better measure of intelligence because it is determined by many other competing personality factors, whatever the environmental factors. Am I wrong? Please "educate" me.
Your argument is flawed.

What you are trying to do is show that other factors correlate better with wealth than intelligence does. But this does not help, because one could argue that many of those factors are actually components of "G" (after all, that's the point of a mysterious quantity that you can't pin down - you can change it whenever the argument requires).

Secondly, it is far more direct and effective to point out that high IQ scores do not correlate with great wealth. No disputes that they do in thegeneral sense - mentally handicapped are usually poorer, and those that score above the scale are usually richer. The argument was never that we cannot produce a test which predicts something about intelligence: we know that people who score poorly (85 or below) are handicapped, people who score average (85-110) are average, and people who score high (110+) are smarter. That much is obvious, from the data and common sense.

The argument is about two things: 1) can the test be used to discriminate between people who score higher (i.e. does a score above normal mean anything other than "above normal" - the answer is no). 2) has the effect of culture been removed from the test scores (the answer is still no).

Your line of argument does not address either of these two points, and now we have wasted pages arguing about it, when Jeff summed it up in a sentence.

bpesta22

22nd October 2006, 12:41 PM

Your argument is flawed.

The argument is about two things: 1) can the test be used to discriminate between people who score higher (i.e. does a score above normal mean anything other than "above normal" - the answer is no). .

Are you pulling this out of your ass? The correlation between IQ and wealth is linear well past the mean of 100, unless you got data showing otherwise.

Perhaps this will be another one of them character building apologize because you were wrong and admit it type exercizes.

Jeff Corey

22nd October 2006, 02:48 PM

...
WGS = f(p1,p2,..,IQ,..pn)
IQ= f(i1,12,....in)
"intelligence" <>IQ<>WGS...
Now that really makes it crystal farkin clear!
To a Mensa wannabe, maybe.

AmateurScientist

22nd October 2006, 05:17 PM

Now that really makes it crystal farkin clear!
To a Mensa wannabe, maybe.

Yes, I suppose so. I wouldn't know.

Jeff,

It occurs to me that intelligence may be highly correlated with having compelling cat avatars and not having Dave as part of your screename. Do you disagree?

:D

AS

Thinktoomuch

22nd October 2006, 05:43 PM

Good morning Professor Corey.
I can not be totally sure, but a brief search through previous threads and Google (that I should have done earlier, my mistake) indicate that you are indeed a psychology lecturer.

This changes substantially my perception of your attitude. I wrongly guessed that you were a young man with anger management problems due to poor self confidence, and was almost tempted to paternal(istical)ly
suggest that you address that issue if you wanted to hold a job in the real world.

Now I am more tempted to make lightharted comments about us angry old men, but that would not help either. What would be useful, I hope, is to try to see if we could establish a productive modus operandi within the supposedly "educative" purpose of the forum.

I am very appreciative of Yahzi preparedness to expose himself (albeit with a bit of coaxing - thanks Yahzi!) in order to help me, but I do not know enough about his background to see how far he can enlighten me beyond intelligent argument. His profile only says that he is an "engineer".

I am also appreciative of the fact that you use your real name, have a reputation to protect and no time to teach every idiot who asks, but I am sure you agree with me that a concise authoritative explanation instead of a put down a couple of days ago would have saved both Yahzi and me time and effort, as he says himself. If I had then shown "denseness" after your explanation, a polite dismissal would have been quite appropriate.

As the situation now stands, I was quite aware of the first point of Yahzi's response but still think it does not invalidate my proposed research approach. Can behavioural variables be included in a measure of thinking ability? does this not change the nature of what is meant to be measured? An authoritative yes or no from you would be sufficient, thank you.

I do not agree that the argument is about the discrimination power of the test at high values (be he correct or not about the premises) - you might want to comment- but I agree that I have not addressed methods for ensuring the removal of environmental factors, including culture. I admitted not being qualified to address the methodological aspects. The question here is whether the approach is useful assuming that this aspect can be adequately addressed, like it would have to be for any other approach. Could you briefly explain why if this is not the case?

As regards Mensa wannabe... wrong again :blush: .
According toTKdoll in another thread I would have qualified (first percentile, Raven Advanced Matrices) but I never thought it was worth applying, after reading in my 20s that most Mensa people were unemployed ad the two female members with the highest IQ were a truck driver and a belly dancer. I still remember it 40 years later!

Dave1001

22nd October 2006, 05:49 PM

Good morning Professor Corey.
I can not be totally sure, but a brief search through previous threads and Google (that I should have done earlier, my mistake) indicate that you are indeed a psychology lecturer.

I don't recall Professor Corey's take on this topic, but I share your happiness that we have someone who has expertise in the field, and is a real world name with a reputation. I'll try to go back in the thread and read up on Professor Corey's viewpoint, because I'm sure we'll all have a number of questions for him on this topic.:)

Dave1001

22nd October 2006, 05:52 PM

I don't think it's at all clear that Bert (Burt?) faked his data, but that's for another thread I guess...

Sir Cyril published three twin studies over more than a decade and in every one the correlation between the IQs of MZ twins raised separately was +.771.
When I heard Leo Kamin present that at the Eastern Psychological Association meeting in '70 or '71, I was surprized that Kamin's only comment was, "It appears Burt's data are not worthy of scientific consideration." or words to that effect.

I'm not sure what you mean by this post, Professor Corey. Do you think Burt faked his data or not? Do you think this data (about correlation between the IQs of MZ twins raised separately) has validity or not?

Dave1001

22nd October 2006, 06:00 PM

Okay. I read all your posts Professor Corey. I see why I didn't recall your position -you didn't post that much to this thread and didn't spell out an overall position on this topic.

I get the sense you think IQ is woo?

What's your overall sense of the state of study of human intelligence and human intelligence measurement? If you think the concept of "human intelligence" as a unitary phenomenon is also woo, what you're sense of the various human cognitive abilities that are factors in what is commonly perceived to be human intelligence?

Finally, what scientists (if any) do you think are doing the best work and good science in these areas?

Dave1001

22nd October 2006, 06:09 PM

Or, stripped of it's excessive verbosity, "I believe what I believe and don't really to find out the truth."

I don't think that's an accurate description of me. I'm honest about my opinions on how the world appears to be, and I welcome better information so that my view on the world better corresponds to how it actually is.

I get the sense Luchog that you think you already know the "truth" about IQ testing, wealth accumulation as a measure of human intelligence, etc. Good for you. I don't think I know "the truth" about those topics yet. But yet I have opinions that are not grounded in rigorous empirical research and analysis. I recognize them for what they are -opinions, not nobel prize winning research. That's different from saying I "don't really [need] to find out the truth". I'd like to find out and understand "the truth".

But finding out "the truth" isn't the same as agreeing to what the majority of thread participants think is the truth simply because some of them demean people who don't agree with them. It's possible that I won't be able to make a more informed opinion on this topic until I've at least mastered the basics of probability and statistics. I'm not going to have time for that until after I take the bar next summer at the earliest. But until then, I'm interested in intelligent, informed views on this topic. Including contrarian and politically incorrect ones.:)

Jeff Corey

22nd October 2006, 06:51 PM

Good evening. I just don't think that a person should brag about an IQ of almost two sds above the mean and then show that IQ means sh** if you drone on with crap arguments, misspellings and and a profound misunderstanding of what "despondent" means.
To me that would indicate a low score on any verbal portion of a test.
Maybe you did better on questions like:
Complete the sequence.
O T T F F S S E _ _

Jeff Corey

22nd October 2006, 07:02 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by this post, Professor Corey. Do you think Burt faked his data or not? Do you think this data (about correlation between the IQs of MZ twins raised separately) has validity or not?

Dude, call me Jeff. I firmly believe Burt faked the data. But the data on the KIBRA gene involvement with memory is somewhat tangentially related to the question.

Dave1001

22nd October 2006, 07:13 PM

Edit

Jeff Corey

22nd October 2006, 07:17 PM

Sorry. it was to Think2much.
And if you only post one liners. the speelling part iz easy.

Dave1001

22nd October 2006, 07:18 PM

Dude, call me Jeff. I firmly believe Burt faked the data. But the data on the KIBRA gene involvement with memory is somewhat tangentially related to the question.

And what's your opinion on the KIBRA gene involvement with memory, as applies to this conversation, Jeff?

Dave1001

22nd October 2006, 07:20 PM

Sorry. it was to Think2much.

okay, thanks for letting me know. Edited.

Thinktoomuch

22nd October 2006, 07:48 PM

[quote=Jeff Corey;2028151]Good evening. I just don't think that a person should brag about an IQ of almost two sds above the mean and then show that IQ means sh** if you drone on with crap arguments, misspellings and and a profound misunderstanding of what "despondent" means.
To me that would indicate a low score on any verbal portion of a test.
quote]

You got this one right, at last. Despondent is incorrect, I meant obnoxious. And I actually did score lower (still in the first decile) in verbal tests. English is my third language. May I ask what is your verbal intelligence score in Italian? Surely you can see the profound irony of pointing out my typos.

I have given up trying to get an intelligent response to my questions. I just don't think a person should teach if he can only describe a purportedly stupid argument as "crap".

Jeff Corey

22nd October 2006, 07:50 PM

And what's your opinion on the KIBRA gene involvement with memory, as applies to this conversation, Jeff?

If there is a substantial contribution of genetic heritage to memory, then some people are going to be inheritantly better at remembering crucial facts than others, unless environmental factors such fetal alcohol syndrome fark them up.
This may give them a leg up in a number of areas, just as being muscular and agile would in others.
Teasing out the interacting forces of genetics and envronment will employ scientists until there are no scientists left.

Dave1001

22nd October 2006, 08:02 PM

If there is a substantial contribution of genetic heritage to memory, then some people are going to be inheritantly better at remembering crucial facts than others, unless environmental factors such fetal alcohol syndrome fark them up.
This may give them a leg up in a number of areas, just as being muscular and agile would in others.
Teasing out the interacting forces of genetics and envronment will employ scientists until there are no scientists left.

Interesting, and sounds reasonable. Is there a list of other genes that seem to have tangible impacts on the cognitive abilities of healthy people?

Jeff Corey

22nd October 2006, 08:14 PM

Interesting, and sounds reasonable. Is there a list of other genes that seem to have tangible impacts on the cognitive abilities of healthy people?

Yes, there was a recent study that showed that about half of the population shows a gene related to austism and related disorders. If you have two recessive parents, it may be a problem.
As if blue eyes were a problem,

Jeff Corey

22nd October 2006, 08:29 PM

[QUOTE=Thinktoomuch;2028278]... May I ask what is your verbal intelligence score in Italian? ..QUOTE]
Moi? Je suis un stupidaggini en Italiano.

Thinktoomuch

22nd October 2006, 08:58 PM

Voila' alors, nous pouvons agre'er en Franc,ais peut e^tre?

Jeff Corey

22nd October 2006, 09:21 PM

Que? WHaasup? Donno that french linguistic, Quesqua skaw vu dire?

luchog

23rd October 2006, 10:16 AM

I get the sense Luchog that you think you already know the "truth" about IQ testing, wealth accumulation as a measure of human intelligence, etc. Good for you.

Ignoring your patronizing attitude, no, I don't claim to. This thread has been quite an education for me. But I do know that no one in this thread has yet submitted anything resembling adequate support for linking intelligence with wealth-gathering, nor has there been any coherent and supportable explanation of what exactly IQ or g are.

I don't think I know "the truth" about those topics yet. But yet I have opinions that are not grounded in rigorous empirical research and analysis. I recognize them for what they are -opinions, not nobel prize winning research. That's different from saying I "don't really [need] to find out the truth". I'd like to find out and understand "the truth".
Yet you categorically dismiss anything that even appears to contradict your opinions, ignoring any research that challenges your deeply held beliefs; and trumpetting research long since discredited as falsified and invalid. That doesn't sound to me like someone interested in truth, only someone interested in confirmation of existing beleifs and dogmas. Much like most religious people.

Dave1001

23rd October 2006, 10:39 AM

Yet you categorically dismiss anything that even appears to contradict your opinions, ignoring any research that challenges your deeply held beliefs; and trumpetting research long since discredited as falsified and invalid. That doesn't sound to me like someone interested in truth, only someone interested in confirmation of existing beleifs and dogmas. Much like most religious people.

Ignoring your patronizing attitude (please stop patronizing me, Luchog), no I don't. Actually there's nothing in this thread I've categorically dismissed. Nor have I trumpeted any research (are you sure you're not mixing me up with other posters)? I lack the credentials and background education to either dismiss ideas in this thread or to trumpet research. I haven't read a single academic paper on these topics. Much like most people who have opinions on topics ranging from global warming to the search for extraterrestrial life.

Please direct me to anything in this thread I've "categorically dismissed" or any research I've "trumpeted". If you are unable to do so, then I think you owe me an apology for falsely characterizing my posts on this topic.

AmateurScientist

23rd October 2006, 11:06 AM

Oh, man, I hear the civility police again. Run, man, run.

AS

Yahzi

23rd October 2006, 01:18 PM

Are you pulling this out of your ass? The correlation between IQ and wealth is linear well past the mean of 100, unless you got data showing otherwise.
There was a long discussion on how IQ scores are useless at the high end.

I realize you weren't paying attention, but that's not my problem.

Yahzi

23rd October 2006, 01:21 PM

Yet you categorically dismiss anything that even appears to contradict your opinions, ignoring any research that challenges your deeply held beliefs;
To be fair to Dave (and believe me, I find the exercise as shocking as you do), over in the "Of In-Group and Race" thread he posted a link to research that supports my comments about the effects of social expectation.

Dave1001

23rd October 2006, 02:08 PM

To be fair to Dave (and believe me, I find the exercise as shocking as you do), over in the "Of In-Group and Race" thread he posted a link to research that supports my comments about the effects of social expectation.

I appreciate you noticing and I appreciate you pointing this out.:)

Yahzi has an honest disagreement with me rooted in a correct understanding of my posts and positions. My understanding is that he feels that some topics shouldn't be discussed openly if nothing enlightening is likely to come from them, if the discussion itself has the potential of harming people. And I think he thinks cognitive ability difference in human subpopulations is one such topic and the JREF forum is someplace harm can occur. Whereas I think JREF forum is an appropriate place to discuss these topics (I agree discussing these topics and theories loudly where kids in a Head Start program can overhear could be a bad and psychologically damaging thing to do to them) because of the maturity and sophistication of the board members.

By Yahzi's criteria and beliefs, he's right to be upset that I'm entertaining these theories in this public forum. And he's made that clear to me. Whereas in my opinion, Luchog, your criticism of me is rooted in a misunderstanding of my posts (as I explained in my previous post #305).

Thinktoomuch

23rd October 2006, 09:50 PM

Oh boy oh boy, this is going to stir the pot! Enjoy...

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1768862.htm

Dave1001

24th October 2006, 04:56 AM

Oh boy oh boy, this is going to stir the pot! Enjoy...

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1768862.htm

Interesting. Professor Miles Little, the authority quoted at length in this piece, seems to be well-qualified to speak on this topic. I'm not sure if he's right about the treatment Benveniste and Burt received, but I think the overall message is a very good one:

Science is supposed to allow for freedom to experiment, including in unusual ways that could challenge scientific paradigms, he says.
It is also supposed to allow for the possibility of scientists making mistakes.
Instead of vilifying those who step outside the bounds of what is regarded as acceptable science, Little says scientists should first investigate their claims using the objective criteria, said to be central to good scientific practice.

Jeff Corey

24th October 2006, 05:45 AM

Dave1001

24th October 2006, 06:17 AM

Prof. Little seems to have disorted the facts about Burt, who was quite famous and influential in the field of educational psychology prior to his death in 1971. He was the editor of the British Journal of Mathematical Psychology and was knighted by Her Royal Majesty for his work on the contribution of heredity to intelligence*, among other works. He was considered the top of his field and not an "aberrant" scientist.
Not until Kamin's EPA presentation in 1972 (mentioned earlier) did cracks start to appear in Burt's edifice of dubious data. Kamin was unable to get his views published until 1974, when The Science and Politics of IQ came out.
Now, as Prof. Little says, no one quotes his data anymore because they are still considered. "not worthy of scientific consideration." (Kamin, 1974). Not for reasons of political correctness.

*I wonder why a hereditary ruler would do that?

I don't know, it's possible for it to be true BOTH that Burt's reputation deserves its dubious state AND that the discussion of heredity and discussion of heredity and intelligence is skewed for reasons of political correctness. Also it could be true that in Burt's time his conclusions were politically correct, but that in the '70s political correctness norms changed. Of course, maybe none of that is true, too. I'm just pointing this out because dialectics contrasting JUST one idea against JUST one other can be easy ways to falsely limit possible explanations for a phenomenon.

Finally, as to your crack about hereditary rulers -that indicates to me that that built into these type discussions is hierarchy manufacture -the cool kids are the ones that make egalitarian jokes about the folks that more strongly buy into the idea of hereditary intelligence. It's one of the reasons I wouldn't discuss this non-anonymously unless I too struck a cool kid pose, but I'm not sure what this has to do with good science, except to exert negative pressure against considering politically incorrect ideas (or face similar ridicule along the lines as "You believe that heredity and intelligence are linked because you're a monarchist, not pro-democracy like us).

Jeff Corey

24th October 2006, 06:56 AM

How does any of that address the issue of whether Prof. Little distorted the facts of the matter pertaining to Burt?

Dave1001

24th October 2006, 08:26 AM

How does any of that address the issue of whether Prof. Little distorted the facts of the matter pertaining to Burt?

It doesn't. You may have a valid point there. But personally, I'm more curious about whether he hit the mark about the wide phenomenon he's describing, about the degree to which political correctness and what I'd describe as moral highground competitions skew scientific inquiry. Maybe it's not a problem at all. But that's not the sense I get. It's also possible that the science proceeds just fine, protected by dense vocabulary and terminology and publication in journals that are obscure to politically correct critical laymen. That's my hope -but I have no idea if that's the case or not as a layman myself. My fear is that areas of scientific inquiry are more or less shut-off just because we fear politically incorrect "data" or conclusions. I hope that's not the case.

Beth

24th October 2006, 08:28 AM

drkitten

24th October 2006, 08:44 AM

It doesn't. You may have a valid point there. But personally, I'm more curious about whether he hit the mark about the wide phenomenon he's describing, about the degree to which political correctness and what I'd describe as moral highground competitions skew scientific inquiry.

Interesting.

So when a practicing scientist is publically vilified for making stuff up, you want to know if maybe, just maybe, he happened to hit the mark.... and if the reasons that he was criticized for making stuff up is just "political correctness."

Maybe it's not a problem at all. But that's not the sense I get. It's also possible that the science proceeds just fine, protected by dense vocabulary and terminology and publication in journals that are obscure to politically correct critical laymen.

As usual, you've gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Part of the reason that "science proceeds just fine " is because of the public dissemination and discussion of results. Burt was not some young whippersnapper who was excluded from the scientific establishment because his results contradicted long-held theories. His results defined long-held theories, and he was the establishment. The "young whippersnapper," if you like, was actually Kamin, who did not publish his results during Burt's lifetime.

But when he finally did manage to publish, he destroyed Burt's data, and with it, the entire intellectual edifice that rested upon that fictitious data. That's how science progresses -- via public evaluation.

And the current "political correctness" regarding IQ dates from the mid to late 1970s as a direct result of Kamin's criticism. WIthout Burt's lies, the Emperor has no clothes.

My fear is that areas of scientific inquiry are more or less shut-off just because we fear politically incorrect "data" or conclusions. I hope that's not the case.

The destruction of the intellectual validity of IQ is more or less direct proof that "political correctness" does not choke off politically incorrect conclusions. Burt was able to wield a tremendous amount of power during his lifetime, but his house of cards collapsed within a few years after his death.

Dave1001

24th October 2006, 09:28 AM

Interesting.

So when a practicing scientist is publically vilified for making stuff up, you want to know if maybe, just maybe, he happened to hit the mark.... and if the reasons that he was criticized for making stuff up is just "political correctness."

No. I was clearly referring to Prof. Little there, not Burt. As is obvious from the post I was responding to. Both are reposted below.

How does any of that address the issue of whether Prof. Little distorted the facts of the matter pertaining to Burt?

It doesn't. You may have a valid point there. But personally, I'm more curious about whether he hit the mark about the wide phenomenon he's describing, about the degree to which political correctness and what I'd describe as moral highground competitions skew scientific inquiry. Maybe it's not a problem at all. But that's not the sense I get. It's also possible that the science proceeds just fine, protected by dense vocabulary and terminology and publication in journals that are obscure to politically correct critical laymen. That's my hope -but I have no idea if that's the case or not as a layman myself. My fear is that areas of scientific inquiry are more or less shut-off just because we fear politically incorrect "data" or conclusions. I hope that's not the case.

As usual, you've gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Part of the reason that "science proceeds just fine " is because of the public dissemination and discussion of results. Burt was not some young whippersnapper who was excluded from the scientific establishment because his results contradicted long-held theories. His results defined long-held theories, and he was the establishment. The "young whippersnapper," if you like, was actually Kamin, who did not publish his results during Burt's lifetime.

But when he finally did manage to publish, he destroyed Burt's data, and with it, the entire intellectual edifice that rested upon that fictitious data. That's how science progresses -- via public evaluation.

And the current "political correctness" regarding IQ dates from the mid to late 1970s as a direct result of Kamin's criticism. WIthout Burt's lies, the Emperor has no clothes.

The destruction of the intellectual validity of IQ is more or less direct proof that "political correctness" does not choke off politically incorrect conclusions. Burt was able to wield a tremendous amount of power during his lifetime, but his house of cards collapsed within a few years after his death.

The year is 2006, not 1974. I don't think we do any favors for empiricism by telling tales of how Kamin disproved Burt. Let's focus on what we can discover today. And keep inquiry open, whether it bolsters Kamin's theories, or whether it discredits them now or in the future. The triumph is not that a theory of heridatary intelligence (or IQ, or anything else) is credited or discredited. The triumph, in my opinion, is learning more about the universe today than we did yesterday -regardless of the political correctness or incorrectness of what we learn. I think Prof. Little made that larger point well as reported in that article.

Jeff Corey

24th October 2006, 10:05 AM

It doesn't. You may have a valid point there. But personally, I'm more curious about whether he hit the mark about the wide phenomenon he's describing....

That's funny, I was responding to your statement, "I'm not sure he's right about the treatment ...Burt received."
I was merely pointing out that he was wrong and apparently purposefully distorted the facts to make his point.

Dave1001

24th October 2006, 10:50 AM

That's funny, I was responding to your statement, "I'm not sure he's right about the treatment ...Burt received."
I was merely pointing out that he was wrong and apparently purposefully distorted the facts to make his point.

I understand, and I acknowledge you could be correct about Burt (I don't know- you and Dr. Little I'm sure would both know better). It seems to me to be a strong charge to allege that Dr. Little purposefully distorted the facts to make Dr. Little's point -but you could be right about that too. I don't know about that either. I still would like to see a more in depth discussion focused specifically on whether political correctness is having an adverse impact on scientific inquiry or not. I perceive that it does, but I haven't studied up on this and I'm not an expert on this topic. It would be great to look at the best writings on both sides of this issue (and any other "sides" to it). Not the narrow issue of Burt, but the larger issue of the impact, if any, of political correctness on scientific inquiry.

Yahzi

25th October 2006, 12:22 PM

For Bpesta, an example of social cues causing physiological effects:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66994

Yahzi

14th November 2006, 09:47 AM

And to cap it all off - the whole long discussion about accuracy, science, and Jensen - here we have this lovely little gem:

Jensen pretends his tests are accurate to 3 points (http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Science/Race-IQ_Gap_Remains_Findings_Could_Undermine_Affirmativ e_Action_88259.html)

Gosh... turns out everything I said about magical accuracy is right. Who would have guessed?

drkitten

14th November 2006, 10:26 AM

Jensen pretends his tests are accurate to 3 points (http://www.pressbox.co.uk/detailed/Science/Race-IQ_Gap_Remains_Findings_Could_Undermine_Affirmativ e_Action_88259.html)

And bpesta wonders why I consider Jensen a fraud when he routinely misrepresents the facts in this way.

bpesta22

14th November 2006, 02:20 PM

And bpesta wonders why I consider Jensen a fraud when he routinely misrepresents the facts in this way.

I read the link and don't understand your /yahzi's criticisms. Is it possible you misread?

were you talking about this paragraph?

Rushton and Jensen said their new study confirmed their earlier conclusion that Black-White IQ differences are 80 percent heritable, an estimate based on a review of the literature in the 2005 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Rushton argued that given that the IQ differences were 80 percent genetic, no more than a 3-IQ point convergence would be possible.

I'd bet money the 3 point claim is mathmatically derived based on accepted reliabilities of various IQ tests.

Why do you think the claim makes Jensen look like a fool or dishonest?

I think they're saying that assuming the gap is 80% genetic (and therefore fixed) the ceiling on how much environmental interventions will narrow that gap is 3 IQ points.

And, I bet they prove it mathmatically.

Psych Science is a premiere journal btw.

bpesta22

14th November 2006, 02:50 PM

Yahzi.

I just read the actual article-- turns out it's only 2 pages.

You should take the time to actually read it. It might expose your ignorance.

The link you gave seems to mis-cite them. The claim they actually make is: ...the best estimate of black-white convergence [closing of the gap from 15 points to whatever it supposedly is now] over the past 100 years is between 0 and 3.44 IQ points-- a maximum effect size of .23-- well within the predictions of our estimated heritability of .80 for the black white difference in the United States.

So: Use a report of an article. Don't bother to read the actual article. Misinterpret what the article says (and what it means). Then smugly conclude the junk science is at our end.

Talk about religious beliefs...

***

By the way, the flynn effect is a 3 point increase per decade. How's that possible in your world view?

Dave1001

14th November 2006, 03:48 PM

So this field is still active in 2005? Have they started using actual genetic markers for analyzing IQ and population rather than only using social race?

Jeff Corey

14th November 2006, 04:03 PM

Good point. I recall reading an article in National Geographic about the genome project and a man who though he was black, who actually wasn't.
I imagine there are many whites who could find a surprize in the dna woodpile.
And whenever I read anything by Rushton, I dissolve in laughter recalling his correlation of racial IQ and penis size.

a_unique_person

14th November 2006, 04:53 PM

I at least appreciate this thread. Those giant threads intimidate me...

Feeling intimidated yet?

Dave1001

14th November 2006, 05:00 PM

And whenever I read anything by Rushton, I dissolve in laughter recalling his correlation of racial IQ and penis size.

Too bad. I'd rather hear that scientists are expanding our knowledge, including in politically correct areas, than laughing at easy targets.

hammegk

14th November 2006, 05:05 PM

Good point. I recall reading an article in National Geographic about the genome project and a man who though he was black, who actually wasn't.
Somehow I doubt pointing at odd outliers provides good points.

I imagine there are many whites who could find a surprize in the dna woodpile.
And whenever I read anything by Rushton, I dissolve in laughter recalling his correlation of racial IQ and penis size.
Got a citation? Otherwise, I call bullpucky.

At least you appear to admit the genome can clearly distinguish "race". And yes, I understand the mixed-breed problem.

So this field is still active in 2005? Have they started using actual genetic markers for analyzing IQ and population rather than only using social race?
Try "physical appearance" rather than "social race". What would we be? Correct 9 times out of 10 based solely on appearance? Or would it only be 7 times out of ten?

Jeff Corey

14th November 2006, 05:08 PM

So what's your frakin problem? It is idiotic to take Rushton's research seriously when he uses a questionable measure of penis size and then correlates it with "racial IQ".
It is in the nature of scientists like me to find that risible.

hammegk

14th November 2006, 05:50 PM

And it's in the nature of people here including me to ask where the data reside to back up your claim. That's the fricken problem. Where in Ed's name did he ever correlate penis size and "racial iq"?

Jeff Corey

14th November 2006, 06:05 PM

It's in the literature, look it up. By the way, Rushton would estimate that you have a HUGE schwantzenstucker.

hammegk

14th November 2006, 06:16 PM

No thanks. I'll just say I think you are a liar. And please stick yours in your ear.

marting

14th November 2006, 07:10 PM

And it's in the nature of people here including me to ask where the data reside to back up your claim. That's the fricken problem. Where in Ed's name did he ever correlate penis size and "racial iq"?

Rushton actually did correlate race with penis size, brain size, and IQ. I have the book he wrote about that kicking around somewhere. I don't think there has been any work correlating penis size and IQ per se.

Jeff Corey

14th November 2006, 07:19 PM

Jeff Corey

14th November 2006, 07:55 PM

Rushton actually did correlate race with penis size, brain size, and IQ. I have the book he wrote about that kicking around somewhere. I don't think there has been any work correlating penis size and IQ per se.

That was Race, Evolution and Behavior (2000) where he repeated his earlier claim about the negative correlation mentioned earlier and disputed by Biggus Diccus, over there in the corner.
He did not, in fact, claim the correlation was within individuals, but across what he called "races". The "yellow", smartest, but modestly endowed, "white" pretty much medium, and the men with large johnsons but small gs.

marting

14th November 2006, 08:07 PM

Yep, that was the book. Like Rushton, a real piece of work.

Jeff Corey

14th November 2006, 08:15 PM

Now let's talk about dirtbags that call other people liars. Maybe I should dog Hammy and call him a liar whenever... nah, just a waste of time.

Yahzi

14th November 2006, 08:58 PM

new research shows the 15-point IQ difference is as large today as it was 100 years ago.
So now data from 100 years ago counts.

By the way, the flynn effect is a 3 point increase per decade.
Woops! Now it doesn't!

Notice how the article itself never mentions the Flynn effect; no, that only appears when we IQ heretics bring it up. As soon as we leave the room, it is as forgotten as a Bible error at a Baptist convention.

You spent a lot of pages claiming that IQ testing had come a long way, that it was science now and not just race-baiting. Then how to account for this article, which presumes that the accuracy of IQ tests has not materially changed in the last 100 years?

How's that possible in your world view?
Does this sentence ring a bell: "The test is a worthless metric for anything other than detecting gross deficiencies." Is there something about that concept that you find incomprehensible?

presented data showing the Black-White IQ differences narrowing by 4 to 7 points
So they're claiming they can measure a 4 point difference.

It was first clearly established in 1917 by an analysis in the U.S. Army of 23,596 Black draftees
Hmm. An Army study in 1917. What do you suppose the chances of racial bias in that data collection were?

Why... none at all, of course. Whatever could you mean, evil Yahzi?

no more than a 3-IQ point convergence would be possible.
Notice that this sentence does not say, "the convergence would be below statistical ability to measure." That is not what it says. What it says is, we should not expect to see more than 3 points of change. This, in the ordinary world, implies that the author thinks we could see 3 points of change.

Ergo, you are wrong: Jensen thinks he can measure 3 points.

Prof. Rushton said the results explained the under-representation of Blacks in high IQ occupations.
Our entire conversation, Bpesta, was about your blunt refusal to entertain any other hypothesis for the difference in test scores. And here your heroes are continuing to do the same: even to the point of actually suggesting that genetic deficiency is such an adequate explanation for current socio-economic differences that we need not even consider blatant social prejudice.

How can you read a comment like this and not recognize it as race-baiting filth?

You should take the time to actually read it. It might expose your ignorance.
The fact that you read it, and did not notice the blatant racism, exposes something about you. Sadly, it is vastly more disappointing than ignorance, and not so easily curable.

This topic is theology. We can tell because ordinary facts (for instance, the idea that perhaps there are so few 60-year old black professors is because when those young men were of college age so few of them were allowed to attend universiteis) simply have no place in the discussion.

Theology is always repugnant; but you have chosen a particularly odious dogma.

Yahzi

14th November 2006, 09:11 PM

Here's what I sent to the fabulous Prof. Retard:

"new research shows the 15-point IQ difference is as large today as it was 100 years ago."

I take it from this that you feel IQ testing has not materially changed in accuracy or results for 100 years?

Don't you think that is a controversial assumption? It would be truly remarkable if psychologists from Freud's era were just as capable of measuring and understanding intelligence as psychologists of today are. That would imply that psychology has made virtually no progress whatsoever.

But I suppose, given you as an example of the field, it isn't such an unbelievable implication after all.

- Yahzi

marting

14th November 2006, 10:31 PM

Here's a curious twist.

It's interesting to observe that in an equal opportunity, past environment corrected society, most all IQ variation would be genetic.

After seeing the flail* between Gould and Murray over R-Squared as applied to a logistical correlation, I discovered they both misunderstood the math and just fell into what supported their existing beliefs.

*This was the famous Thanksgiving issue of the New Yorker where Gould lit into "The Bell Curve."

Thinktoomuch

15th November 2006, 03:10 AM

It's not fair! I stay away for a few weeks, feeling a bit despondent :D... , to pick up again "Bias in mental testing" (I obviously did not peruse it enough the first time, it was still almost pristine) and now you tell me that Jensen is a fraud! Could anybody tell me at least what parts of that book are not too controversial?

And could somebody please, please tell me what size penis corresponds to an IQ of 135? It could be very good for my ego... Only if the information is reliable, though: was Rushton peer reviewed by the experts who write for Cosmopolitan?

Dave1001

15th November 2006, 03:40 AM

That's typical of you low intelligence but otherly endowed persons. You call me a liar faster than a speeding larsen, without even searching for Rushton & Bogaert (1987) Race differences in sexual behavior: Testing an evolutionary hypothesis.

You simpleton.

Jeff, I think your approach is less than helpful. Rushton's work on this topic can either be validated or dismissed through empirical inquiry. But you seem to me to prefer to use it to manufacture good-guys vs. bad-guys teams for the purpose of social conflict. I think that ends up just being a distraction from empirical inquiry and enlightenment.

Jekyll

15th November 2006, 04:23 AM

That was Race, Evolution and Behavior (2000) where he repeated his earlier claim about the negative correlation mentioned earlier and disputed by Biggus Diccus, over there in the corner.
He did not, in fact, claim the correlation was within individuals, but across what he called "races". The "yellow", smartest, but modestly endowed, "white" pretty much medium, and the men with large johnsons but small gs.

Historically, authors tend to have the physical characteristics they associate with large 'g'.

rehn

15th November 2006, 04:38 AM

Here's a curious twist.

It's interesting to observe that in an equal opportunity, past environment corrected society, most all IQ variation would be genetic.

Yes, this is an observation I have made in other forums. In Sweden where education is basically free we can see the beginning of this.
The long term result of this will be a new kind of society where your social class is based on IQ only. Since you tend to marry within your own subgroup, high IQ people will marry other high IQ people. Less IQ will marry..... etc. And since IQ in this "perfect equal opportunity society" is genetic only, the bell curve will be wider and wider for each generation....
Maybe we will have "species split" after a few 1000 years...

Dave1001

15th November 2006, 04:57 AM

Yes, this is an observation I have made in other forums. In Sweden where education is basically free we can see the beginning of this.
The long term result of this will be a new kind of society where your social class is based on IQ only. Since you tend to marry within your own subgroup, high IQ people will marry other high IQ people. Less IQ will marry..... etc. And since IQ in this "perfect equal opportunity society" is genetic only, the bell curve will be wider and wider for each generation....
Maybe we will have "species split" after a few 1000 years...

What may confound this is that in less than "a few 1000 years" IQ may be manipulatable with technology. This could result either in democratic sharing of IQ, or even more likely, an even quicker IQ spread that is driven by competition (and collaboration) between high IQ people rather than procreative choices.

Jeff Corey

15th November 2006, 05:06 AM

Jeff, I think your approach is less than helpful. Rushton's work on this topic can either be validated or dismissed through empirical inquiry. But you seem to me to prefer to use it to manufacture good-guys vs. bad-guys teams for the purpose of social conflict. I think that ends up just being a distraction from empirical inquiry and enlightenment.

Dave, I find that you missed the point.

Yahzi

15th November 2006, 12:16 PM

And since IQ in this "perfect equal opportunity society" is genetic only, the bell curve will be wider and wider for each generation....
While that is certainly possible, it is by no means a given. We do not yet know how IQ and genes inter-relate. We have no reason to assume that smart people will continue to breed smarter people, any more than we assume that blue-eyed populations will continue to become deeper blue.

It may be true; but until we know it is true, it is premature to assume it.

hammegk

16th November 2006, 05:16 PM

Now let's talk about dirtbags that call other people liars. Maybe I should dog Hammy and call him a liar whenever... nah, just a waste of time.
Scumbag

Good 'ole jeffies' PM.

You *********** scumbag. You don't know what you're talking about and you call me a liar?
Please don't repond to me again.

ROTFLMGDFAO.

Too bad you couldn't manage the citation when asked originally. Go brainwash some stupids I mean students. Maybe they buy your act.

hammegk

17th November 2006, 09:37 AM

...It is in the nature of scientists like me to find that risible.
Why anyone would want to be a scientist like you is a puzzle, but here's much more you and they can laugh at, while you're not guffawing over the crap Gould provided on similar topics.

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm

marting

17th November 2006, 09:59 AM

Rushton certainly isn't a "potted plant" as evidenced by this gem:

In different species of plants and animals we find a consistent pattern between these two variables -- intelligence and reproductive rate.

Maybe he is refering to Aspens, which, according to Libby, "turn in clusters" because their "roots are interconnected." Damn those trees are smart.

Dave1001

17th November 2006, 11:53 AM

Rushton certainly isn't a "potted plant" as evidenced by this gem:

Maybe he is refering to Aspens, which, according to Libby, "turn in clusters" because their "roots are interconnected." Damn those trees are smart.

I hate this "haha we can laugh at the stupid guy" approach to discussing scientific ideas and theories (or dismissing pseudoscientific ones). Also, I think that there may be ways to analyze and compare plant intelligence, given that by intelligence (in nonhumans) we probably mean something like agency effectiveness. There is an element of agency in pant behavior (orienting toward the sun, trapping flies, etc.) and some plants probably have more effective agency than others. I don't think it does these discussions a service to react to the idea of analyzing plant intelligence with ridicule.

marting

17th November 2006, 12:45 PM

I don't think it does these discussions a service to react to the idea of analyzing plant intelligence with ridicule.

Let's see, plant intelligence vs plant reproductive strategy.

I really hate to ridicule new ideas but I do have my limits. I think this hits those limits.

While we're at it, one of best known polygraph exponents has polygraphed plants including single cell ones, yeast. Yep. That hits my limits too.

Steven Howard

17th November 2006, 12:50 PM

I hate this "haha we can laugh at the stupid guy" approach to discussing scientific ideas and theories (or dismissing pseudoscientific ones). Also, I think that there may be ways to analyze and compare plant intelligence, given that by intelligence (in nonhumans) we probably mean something like agency effectiveness. There is an element of agency in pant behavior (orienting toward the sun, trapping flies, etc.) and some plants probably have more effective agency than others. I don't think it does these discussions a service to react to the idea of analyzing plant intelligence with ridicule.

Does it hurt when you bend over backwards like that?

Dave1001

17th November 2006, 12:56 PM

Let's see, plant intelligence vs plant reproductive strategy.

I really hate to ridicule new ideas but I do have my limits. I think this hits those limits.

While we're at it, one of best known polygraph exponents has polygraphed plants including single cell ones, yeast. Yep. That hits my limits too.

I think polygraphing plant yeast is substantially different than attempting to look at the concept of plant intelligence (or to get even more basic, crystal intelligence, large molecule intelligence, etc. Or to get even more macro, termite colony intelligence, group intelligence). Phenomenon that reacts among options to persist -I think that approaches a basic definition of intelligence.

Kurzweil implies as much when he points out that dumber matter has becoming smarter as a product of mutation, reproduction, and natural selection.

Dave1001

17th November 2006, 12:57 PM

Does it hurt when you bend over backwards like that?

reported. I don't think posts like this add anything to the discussion.

marting

17th November 2006, 03:11 PM

reported. I don't think posts like this add anything to the discussion.

"reported" !!??!!

I see nothing in his post that is even remotely against JREF rules.

Yahzi

17th November 2006, 11:32 PM

Let's see, plant intelligence vs plant reproductive strategy.
You know what... I'm just guessing here, but I bet you that Black Walnut trees score consistently lower on IQ tests than regular Walnut trees.

For the last hundred years, even.

:D :D :D

Dave1001

18th November 2006, 02:31 AM

You know what... I'm just guessing here, but I bet you that Black Walnut trees score consistently lower on IQ tests than regular Walnut trees.

For the last hundred years, even.

:D :D :D

Of course you can't administer an IQ test designed for humans to walnut trees, but it may be possible to measure relative effectiveness of response to environmental challenges in different type plants.

BPScooter

18th November 2006, 03:02 AM

So, as I gather from just these last dozen or so posts, "intelligence" is a term that is applied to all entities. Rocks have none, humans have a lot. Plants have some. "effectiveness of response to environmental challenges."

Some rocks last millions of years without damage: barf me out a volcano, scrape me down a glacier, wash me down a river, bury me under a lake, and I will Survive. That sounds like a damned effective response to me.

Of course I'm being silly but definitions do matter. We are of course talking about living matter. Success at adaptation must be more than surviving a while, it really is reproductive success when it comes to beings that die.

Maybe it really is "effectiveness of survival response to further reproduction in the face of environmental challenges" that makes a yeast or a plant intelligent. Or if interaction with and manipulation of the environment is necessary for intellingence, then it's tied to mobility, maybe. Is a nematode more intellingent than a fungus? Or I suppose a symbiotic nematode-fungus with a hive instinct... resistance is futile...