Scientific American and Spearman's g. - Page 9

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

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

drkitten · 14th November 2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Yahzi

Jensen pretends his tests are accurate to 3 points

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

Originally Posted by drkitten

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

Originally Posted by Dylab

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

Feeling intimidated yet?

Dave1001 · 14th November 2006, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

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

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

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.

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by Dave101

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

Originally Posted by hammegk

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

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 Corey · 14th November 2006, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by marting

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

Originally Posted by bpesta22

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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:

Originally Posted by The Snarky Yahzi Dog

"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

... , 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

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

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

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

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

Originally Posted by marting

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

Originally Posted by rehn

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

Originally Posted by Dave1001

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

Originally Posted by rehn

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

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

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.

Quote:

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

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

...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/theed...shton/Race.htm

marting · 17th November 2006, 09:59 AM

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

Quote:

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

Originally Posted by marting

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

Quote:

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

Originally Posted by Dave1001

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

Originally Posted by marting

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

Originally Posted by Steven Howard

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

Originally Posted by Dave1001

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

Originally Posted by marting

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.

Dave1001 · 18th November 2006, 02:31 AM

Originally Posted by Yahzi

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.

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.

25th October 2006, 12:22 PM	#321
Yahzi Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 2,672	For Bpesta, an example of social cues causing physiological effects: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66994
	__________________ ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com

14th November 2006, 09:47 AM	#322
Yahzi Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 2,672	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 Gosh... turns out everything I said about magical accuracy is right. Who would have guessed?
	__________________ ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com

14th November 2006, 02:20 PM	#324
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	Originally Posted by drkitten 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 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

14th November 2006, 02:50 PM	#325
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	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?
bpesta22 Cereal Killer Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 4,648	__________________ Manifest thy bosoms or decamp.

14th November 2006, 03:48 PM	#326
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	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?
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	__________________ I'm here to discuss ideas, not to get personal. I won't criticize you personally, please don't criticize me personally. I won't direct ad hominems at you, please don't direct ad hominems at me. I won't attack you or put you down, please don't attack me or put me down. Thanks.

14th November 2006, 10:26 AM	#323
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Yahzi Jensen pretends his tests are accurate to 3 points And bpesta wonders why I consider Jensen a fraud when he routinely misrepresents the facts in this way.

14th November 2006, 04:03 PM	#327
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	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.

14th November 2006, 04:53 PM	#328
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,314	Originally Posted by Dylab I at least appreciate this thread. Those giant threads intimidate me... Feeling intimidated yet?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

14th November 2006, 05:00 PM	#329
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	Originally Posted by Jeff Corey 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.
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	__________________ I'm here to discuss ideas, not to get personal. I won't criticize you personally, please don't criticize me personally. I won't direct ad hominems at you, please don't direct ad hominems at me. I won't attack you or put you down, please don't attack me or put me down. Thanks.

14th November 2006, 05:05 PM	#330
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Originally Posted by Jeff Corey 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. Quote: 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. Originally Posted by Dave101 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?
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

14th November 2006, 05:08 PM	#331
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	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.

14th November 2006, 05:50 PM	#332
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	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"?
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Last edited by hammegk; 14th November 2006 at 05:52 PM.

14th November 2006, 06:05 PM	#333
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	It's in the literature, look it up. By the way, Rushton would estimate that you have a HUGE schwantzenstucker.

14th November 2006, 06:16 PM	#334
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	No thanks. I'll just say I think you are a liar. And please stick yours in your ear.
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

14th November 2006, 07:10 PM	#335
marting Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rancho Santa Fe Posts: 734	Originally Posted by hammegk 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.
	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

14th November 2006, 07:19 PM	#336
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	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.
	Last edited by Jeff Corey; 14th November 2006 at 07:21 PM.

14th November 2006, 07:55 PM	#337
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	Originally Posted by marting 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.

14th November 2006, 08:07 PM	#338
marting Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rancho Santa Fe Posts: 734	Yep, that was the book. Like Rushton, a real piece of work.
	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

14th November 2006, 08:15 PM	#339
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	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.

14th November 2006, 08:58 PM	#340
Yahzi Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 2,672	Originally Posted by bpesta22 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. Quote: 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? Quote: 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? Quote: 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. Quote: 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? Quote: 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. Quote: 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? Quote: 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.
	__________________ ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com

14th November 2006, 09:11 PM	#341
Yahzi Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 2,672	Here's what I sent to the fabulous Prof. Retard: Originally Posted by The Snarky Yahzi Dog "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
	__________________ ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com

14th November 2006, 10:31 PM	#342
marting Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rancho Santa Fe Posts: 734	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."
	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

15th November 2006, 03:10 AM	#343
Thinktoomuch Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 199	It's not fair! I stay away for a few weeks, feeling a bit despondent ... , 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?
Thinktoomuch Thinker Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 199

15th November 2006, 03:40 AM	#344
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	Originally Posted by Jeff Corey 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.
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	__________________ I'm here to discuss ideas, not to get personal. I won't criticize you personally, please don't criticize me personally. I won't direct ad hominems at you, please don't direct ad hominems at me. I won't attack you or put you down, please don't attack me or put me down. Thanks.

15th November 2006, 04:23 AM	#345
Jekyll Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: The other other place Posts: 1,589	Originally Posted by Jeff Corey 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'.
	__________________ And I looked. And behold a green horse, and his name that sat on him was death. ~Tyndale New Testament

15th November 2006, 04:38 AM	#346
rehn Scholar Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Stockholm Sweden Posts: 51	Originally Posted by marting 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...

15th November 2006, 04:57 AM	#347
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	Originally Posted by rehn 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.
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	__________________ I'm here to discuss ideas, not to get personal. I won't criticize you personally, please don't criticize me personally. I won't direct ad hominems at you, please don't direct ad hominems at me. I won't attack you or put you down, please don't attack me or put me down. Thanks.

15th November 2006, 05:06 AM	#348
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	Originally Posted by Dave1001 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.
	Last edited by Jeff Corey; 15th November 2006 at 05:30 AM.

15th November 2006, 12:16 PM	#349
Yahzi Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 2,672	Originally Posted by rehn 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.
	__________________ ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com

16th November 2006, 05:16 PM	#350
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Originally Posted by Jeff Corey 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. Quote: 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 Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

17th November 2006, 09:37 AM	#351
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Originally Posted by Jeff Corey ...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/theed...shton/Race.htm
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

17th November 2006, 09:59 AM	#352
marting Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rancho Santa Fe Posts: 734	Rushton certainly isn't a "potted plant" as evidenced by this gem: Quote: 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.
	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

17th November 2006, 11:53 AM	#353
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	Originally Posted by marting 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.
Dave1001 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3,717	__________________ I'm here to discuss ideas, not to get personal. I won't criticize you personally, please don't criticize me personally. I won't direct ad hominems at you, please don't direct ad hominems at me. I won't attack you or put you down, please don't attack me or put me down. Thanks.

17th November 2006, 12:45 PM	#354
marting Muse Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Rancho Santa Fe Posts: 734	Quote: 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.
	__________________ Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.

17th November 2006, 12:50 PM	#355
Steven Howard Custom Title Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 1,798	Originally Posted by Dave1001 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?
	__________________ See also:LiveJournal flickr